Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (BY ORDER.)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 16 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Identity Cards

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions have taken place on the introduction of identity cards.

Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the introduction of identity cards.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): We keep this issue under constant review. I fully appreciate the widespread support which exists for a national identity card scheme.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I suggest that Ministers stop trying to sell a national identity card scheme on the basis that it would be a tool to deal with social security fraud—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Conservative Members should wait. Despite the lobby that wants to insert an element of political correctness into the debate, is not the truth that a national identity card scheme could enhance civil liberties, be a major tool in tracking down crime, particularly tax fraud, and also be of immeasurable benefit to people needing emergency medical treatment?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has identified a number of advantages that an identity card could have. As he knows, there are considerable practical difficulties and we are trying to find ways to overcome them.

Mr. Gale: Given that a properly designed identity card could be used as a travel document throughout the European Union, as a passport for pensions and social benefits and to carry medical and banking information, that people in the Press Gallery, hon. Members, servants of the House and many other people in many walks of life already carry identity cards, that the honest person has nothing to fear from carrying an identity card, and that the introduction of such a scheme has the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents Association and the Police Federation, will my right hon.

and learned Friend bring forward in the next Session of Parliament the measures necessary to introduce such a scheme?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an even more compelling case than the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). However, the practical difficulties still need to be overcome. My hon. Friend was not, perhaps, entirely accurate in his description of the organisations which support the introduction of an identity card, but I readily accept that there is widespread support for such a scheme.

Mr. Spellar: Why does the Home Secretary not come clean and admit that the identity card is a political gimmick with a huge cost? His Department's figures show that a scheme would cost £475 million to set up and £50 million to £100 million per year to run. Will he reflect on the figures produced by his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, which show that council tax registers record a 34 per cent. turnover each year? Would that not result in enormous administrative problems? Those are the real practical difficulties and costs of the scheme.

Mr. Howard: I do not conceal from the House that there are practical difficulties. However, the hon. Gentleman would have had a most effective answer to the points that he raised in the early part of his question had he been able to see the number of his hon. Friends shaking their heads as he spoke.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many organisations are now exploring different technologies for smart ID cards? If the Government act quickly they could co-ordinate that activity and produce a card that would have widespread application in the years ahead.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which I assure him is not lost on the Government.

Mr. Allen: Before the Home Secretary is tempted to snatch at a panacea and cure-all for all the things that are wrong with society, will he heed those who have strong reservations in principle about identity cards, those who feel that they could be discriminatory and those who make the case that professional criminals could easily evade the use of such cards? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes any further, will he conduct some serious Home Office research? If he then intends to bring proposals before the House, will he ensure that it is on the basis of an all-party consensus?

Mr. Howard: Given the difference of views expressed in the past two minutes, it would be difficult to strike a consensus that would satisfy everyone.

Mr. Skinner: It would.

Mr. Howard: I am delighted to have the agreement of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). At the end of the day, we will have to make a decision on the matter, but I can certainly give an undertaking to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that we will listen to all the views that are expressed.

Obscene Publications Branch

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the future of the obscene publications branch; and what view he expressed at that meeting.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): My right hon. and learned Friend discussed this matter with the Metropolitan police commissioner on 25 April at one of their periodic private meetings.

Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that speculation about the future of the obscene publications branch will be greeted with glee by the paedophiles and pornographers? Does he agree that the sooner a statement is made that that branch will continue to do the wonderful work that it has been doing and that it will not be broken up or divided, the better it will be for reducing pornography and other unfortunate things that happen in this country?

Mr. Wardle: I shall seek to reassure my hon. Friend even now. There is no question of any relaxation in the fight by the Metropolitan police against pornography. The opposite is the case. The commissioner is examining the way in which all his special operations are organised to see whether there are more effective ways of doing the job. It has to be good management sense to see whether the police can crack down even more effectively on obscene publications and paedophilia.

Drug Abuse

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to reduce the growth of drug abuse.

Mr. Howard: The Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse is aimed at reducing both the supply of, and the demand for, drugs. Key elements in the strategy include increasing the effectiveness of enforcement, developing prevention measures, publicity and education, and improving the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers.

Mr. Hendry: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that clear answer. Has he seen the evidence from parts of the world where cannabis has been legalised? It has resulted in a rapid increase in the consumption of both hard and soft drugs, a massive increase in health costs and an escalation of crime out of all proportion to that which existed before. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will have none of the nonsense peddled by some Opposition Members that cannabis should be legalised in Britain? It sounds as though they have been taking it.

Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance without equivocation. I entirely agree with the points that he has made.

Mr. Stevenson: Is the Home Secretary aware of the specific dangers attributed to the continued use of so-called poppers? Is he further aware of the research done in the United States which clearly shows that the free use of so-called poppers reduces the effectiveness of the immune system? In the light of representations made, for example,

by Staffordshire county council and other authorities, what action does the Home Secretary envisage taking to ban the use of these dangerous substances?

Mr. Howard: I am aware of some of the incidents which have occurred in Staffordshire and elsewhere involving the misuse of substances such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are considering carefully whether the action he suggests as appropriate should be taken.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in dealing with drugs, as with other crimes, it is not sufficient simply to talk about being tough on crime and the causes of crime, but it is necessary also to be tough on criminals?

Mr. Howard: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is horrific that children, sometimes as young as 11, are gaining access to drugs even within the school gates? Does he accept, as the police say, that the problem is likely to get worse with the introduction of highly violent and organised crime rings from the former eastern Europe? Does he agree that if we do not put in place the proper strategy to fight drug abuse, the fight against crime will be hugely hindered?

Mr. Howard: I of course agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the instances of supply of drugs to young children are horrific. I also agree that we have to be on our guard to ensure that the problem is not aggravated by the influx of either drugs or weapons from eastern Europe. We have a strategy in place which adopts a comprehensive approach to the problems relating to drugs and we are examining it to see to what extent it can be improved.

Secure Training Centres

Mr. Coe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish details of the proposed secure training centres for young offenders.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I intend shortly to place in the Library of the House a copy of the operating specification for the new centres.

Mr. Coe: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware that people in my constituency, as in all other constituencies, are angry and tired of having their homes broken into, their cars stolen and often burnt out and their hard-earned property burgled. Does he recognise that the need for secure centres is more important than ever before and that the thrust of activity in those centres must concentrate on rehabilitation, education and training, but above all on counteracting offensive and offending behaviour?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the experts at the sharp end—the police—have given a complete and total welcome to our proposals that action can be taken against 12 to 14-year-olds who are currently outwith the law. My hon. Friend is also right that in the special centres for young persistent offenders we intend to concentrate on training, rehabilitation and addressing the offending behaviour. We can do that only if


we take the offenders away from the street corners and get them into specialist centres where specialists can give them the training that they need.

Mr. Gunnell: As the professionals dealing with young people are generally opposed to the proposals, which will separate children from their families by great distances, and as the centres will not be able to offer the national curriculum, how does the Minister intend to overcome those defects? Does he accept that in the past other methods have proved much more effective than the Government's experiments to combat youth crime?

Mr. Maclean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Nothing like this has been tried before. That is why it is wrong for certain people to give the impression that the centres are mini-prisons; they are not that at all. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, in the nicest possible way, that I should, be more willing to listen to his point were it not for the complete inconsistency shown by the Opposition recently. In this Chamber, there was no all-out assault by the Opposition against the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill dealing with young offenders, but in another place, the whole Opposition Front Bench tried to remove entirely the clauses dealing with young offenders.

Right to Silence

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he gives to reform of the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his plans to abolish the right to silence.

Mr. Maclean: Current restrictions on drawing proper inferences from a suspect's silence are repugnant to common sense and open to exploitation by experienced criminals. I attach a high priority to our reforms of the so-called right to silence rules.

Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend think that our reform of right to silence is one of the measures that the chairman of the Police Federation had in mind when he said yesterday:
Our Home Secretary is more in tune with the Police Federation than any other Home Secretary for 30 years"?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, I am aware of that remark. I am sure that in the spirit of fairness the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) intended to make that quotation available to the House as well. In addition, the Police Federation has written to me about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill saying:
If the measures contained in this Bill are implemented, they will enhance the stature and ability of the criminal justice system to reduce crime, successfully bring criminals to justice and significantly reduce the fear of crime, thereby improving the quality of life for many members of society.
That is the police view; it is the Government's view as well.

Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend find it rather odd, as I do, that a person accused of serious fraud has to provide information under threat of a penalty while a person accused of a criminal offence can remain silent? Does he

agree that the guilty are the only people who are worried and frightened about the removal of the right to silence and is it not common sense to see it go?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but it is not merely the police who agree that those changes to the so-called right to silence are essential. The Lord Chief Justice confirmed that our proposals are absolutely right, saying:
I do not think the proposed measures are unfair. On the contrary I think they introduce an element of common sense and realism which has been sadly lacking hitherto.
And so say all of us.

Mr. Gerrard: How can the Minister justify his proposals to allow an adverse inference to be drawn if a person remains silent when questioned not by police officers but by people who may be completely untrained, such as private security officers or store detectives? Is that not guaranteed to lead to more miscarriages of justice?

Mr. Maclean: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Nor did the House accept it, as I seem to recall that on Third Reading the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill received a majority of 176 votes in this Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—I know that some of them voted against it, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others—and the Opposition Front Bench had thought that that part of the Bill was so reprehensible I am sure that they would have voted against it.

Mr. Trimble: May I refer the Minister to the speech in another place by the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland? In relation to the Northern Ireland provisions on which the measure is based, he said that he had heard no complaints from the Bar in Northern Ireland about its operation? May I also refer the Minister to the report published this week which shows that the operation of the legislation in Northern Ireland has made very little impact on the system there, thus disproving the alarmist stories put about here and reinforcing our point that his proposals are modest? What should be done is seriously to address the right to silence, properly so called, to ensure that it is modified for certain persons in certain categories.

Mr. Maclean: I do not entirely accept that the proposals are modest, but they are not so draconian or radical as some people who are trying to damage the Bill make out. A lot of crystal ball gazing has been going on about the so-called right to silence, which I find quite unnecessary because if one looks at the Northern Ireland experience one can read the book, and it is a book that has worked. We should be guided by what the Lord Chief Justice said, based on the experience in the courts there.

Crime (Departmental Policy)

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in implementing his 27 points to tackle crime.

Mr. Howard: Nineteen of those 27 measures are being taken forward in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Five do not require legislation and are being implemented administratively. I hope to legislate on the remaining three as soon as a suitable opportunity is available.

Mr. Bruce: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that record so far and add to the congratulations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on the remarks made by the chairman of the Police Federation. May we have a war on the thugs and criminals who attack our police officers and believe that they can get away scot free? May we also ensure that every police officer has adequate protection and offensive weapons to stop the attacks ever taking place, because thugs will know that the treatment that they receive will be much harsher than the treatment that they hand out to police officers?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am determined to ensure that our police officers, who face the gravest dangers and risks on our behalf, day in and day out and night in and night out, are properly equipped to face those risks. That was why I authorised the extra measures that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis announced on Monday and why at the Police Federation conference yesterday I made an announcement about the progress of our trials in relation to batons. I am determined to do what is necessary to ensure that our police officers are properly equipped.

Mr. Simpson: If the Home Secretary is concerned about crime prevention, why does he insist on taking funding out of projects such as the Nottingham wheelbase project which, at a cost of less than £50 per young person per week, has a high success rate in deterring young people from crime? Why does he withdraw funding from preventive projects and divert it, leaving the community-based approach ill prepared and underfunded?

Mr. Howard: We have always made it clear that the safer cities programmes would not be permanent in any particular place. We wanted to show what could be done in particular cities and then to move on and demonstrate that elsewhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, given his concern for these matters, will be the first to congratulate the Government on the fact that spending on crime prevention increased to £240 million last year from £200 million the year before—an increase of no less than 20 per cent.—without taking into account any part of the £6 billion per year spent by the police on crime prevention.

Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the new stop and search powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill represent a major breakthrough after 10 years of argument as to how best the police can tackle the difficult problem of knives and sharp pointed weapons? Does he agree that it is a triumph for the whole House to have recognised that difficult problem and given the police the powers that they need to deal with it?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend and I pay particular tribute to the part that he played in drawing the need for extra legislation to the attention of the House. I am satisfied that the additional powers are needed and that they will prove an effective reinforcement of the powers already available to the police. If we are determined to make progress in the fight against crime, we must ensure that our police have the powers that they need. That is something that I am determined to provide.

Mr. Hoon: Will the Home Secretary be bringing forward a list of the number of policy U-turns he has been forced to make since announcing his 27-point plan?

Mr. Howard: The answer is none whatever. If the hon. Gentleman cares to go through the 27 points, he will find that there have been no changes in any of those 27 points save in one very minor respect relating to the right to silence.

Pornography

Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to combat the trade in computer-generated pornography; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclean: We are taking a number of steps in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to ensure that the legislation to control pornography can keep pace with changing technology.

Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend recognise the need to stay one jump ahead of criminals who seek to exploit technology for their own advantage? Will he confirm that the proposed measures will take into account the latest developments in computing?

Mr. Maclean: Yes. I believe that the measures that we have taken in the Bill, many of them within days or weeks of the Select Committee on Home Affairs reporting, will deal with all aspects of computer pornography. We are still turning our attention to two issues: international transmission from foreign countries, and advertising. Apart from those two, however—and they are not germane to dealing with the main problems of computer technology —the measures in the Bill will deal with all aspects of computer pornography in whatever shape or form that vile trade takes now or in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: If the Minister is so anxious to quote the chairman of the Police Federation, why did he not accept the federation's proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to strengthen the laws on computer pornography? Does he accept that the comments made by the chairman of the Police Federation yesterday about the Home Secretary ended with a reference to what the chairman perceived as the greatest threat to policing in a generation in the current inquiry into the core functions of policing, which the general secretary of the federation said could lead to a reduction in the number of police officers from 126,000 to 80,000 by the end of the decade if the Government get their way?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make bricks without straw, but I congratulate him on his courage in being the only Opposition Member to stand up and quote the police today. The Opposition have been quoting the police for the past 12 months, but since the chairman of the Police Federation said yesterday that the current Home Secretary is more in tune with the police than any Home Secretary in the past 30 years, I suspect that the Opposition will be dropping the idea of such quotations like hot bricks.
I am confident that, before the Bill leaves the Palace of Westminster, all the concerns about computer pornography will be addressed and we shall have a comprehensive measure to deal with that vile trade.

Cautioning Guidelines

Mr. Sykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has had to the new guidelines on cautioning; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: The new cautioning guidelines have been widely welcomed. The early indications are that they are already starting to have the intended effect.

Mr. Sykes: Will the Home Secretary promise that his welcome statement marks an end to the scandalous string of cautions that have only encouraged crime? Is he aware of the widespread support for adopting some of the measures used in Singapore for successfully dealing with crime?

Mr. Howard: I very much hope that the cautioning guidelines will have the effect to which my hon. Friend referred, but the measures taken in Singapore go somewhat further than the cautioning guidelines that I have so far authorised.

Mr. Michael: Will the Home Secretary join me in reminding the House that the first caution has had a remarkable success rate, in that some 87 per cent. have not re-offended after a first cautioning? Will he also remind the House of the pressure from the Opposition for a reduction in the number of inappropriate second and subsequent cautions? Why has he not also accepted the constructive proposals that we have put forward to deal immediately with the causes of offending and nip things in the bud as soon as a second offence is committed?

Mr. Howard: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the first caution has an important part to play, and nothing in my new guidance detracts from the first caution in appropriate cases. I confess that I do not recall being under great pressure from the Opposition to issue revised cautioning guidelines. Perhaps that appeared in the 10th footnote to page 103 of one of the hon. Gentleman's briefing notes. We must of course take the causes of crime seriously and take action to deal with them, but it is action, not slogans, which matter, and the Government are taking the necessary action.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his measures to review the guidelines for cautioning are welcome, as the public are sick of seeing hardened youngsters being cautioned again and again? Do not the courts also have a role in the cautioning of parents? Should not we remind the courts of the considerable powers that they have enjoyed for some time now lo bind over parents whose children persistently offend?

Mr. Howard: The formal caution normally takes place in the presence of parents, so they see the extent to which their children are at risk if they continue to offend. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken a number of measures, including those in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, to increase the responsibility that parents must bear for the offences of their children, and which make them responsible in certain circumstances for the failure of their children to comply with the requirements of supervision orders.

Prisoners

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of prisoners being held in police cells.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Refurbished accommodation at Manchester and Durham prisons has been brought back into use and other measures have been taken. Those have helped to reduce the number of prisoners in police cells from 540 in mid-March to 142 on 16 May.

Mr. Bennett: Welcome though that reduction is, does the Minister accept that the use of police cells is totally inappropriate for remanding convicted prisoners and reduces the efficiency of the police force? Given that the past three Home Secretaries have promised that the practice would stop 12 months ago, is not it appalling that it is still going on?

Mr. Wardle: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should ask that question without alluding to the fact that the problem arose in the north-west because of a prison riot in Manchester four years ago, when 1,600 places were destroyed. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will concentrate on the fact that Manchester prison's population is building up again, locked out prisoners are being taken in at the rate of 60 a week there and Doncaster prison will open next month with an extra 779 places. So the use of prison cells for that purpose should shortly be unnecessary.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend give the House the assurance that he will press ahead with the utmost vigour with the prison building programme? Without more spaces, we shall not be able to put behind bars people of the type that the British public want to see there.

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It will not have eluded him that on a number of occasions in recent months my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made telling speeches in which he has said that prison works. At the same time, the prison population has been going up, and crime figures have been coming down a little.

Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister admit that the peak figures he has given for the use of police cells—those for March—were occasioned by the fact that the Prison Service tried to meet the Home Secretary's target of 31 March for ending the practice of having three prisoners to a cell? Does he accept that the number of prisoners being doubled up in cells is rising relentlessly month after month and that prison officers are now expressing deep concern about the fact that current levels of overcrowding undermine the rehabilitation regime for prisoners and endanger the safety of prison officers?

Mr. Wardle: It would no doubt have been helpful to the House if the hon. Lady had reminded us that in 1987,5,000 prisoners were held three to a cell, whereas none are now. Thus, progress is being made. The hon. Lady is right in that in some cases additional accommodation can be used—a further 3,700 places, I think—on the basis of operational maximum usage.

Mr. Garnier: May I invite my hon. Friend to visit Gartree prison, which is in my constituency. There he will see that money is being well used to expand an


establishment where the prisoners are not overcrowded, where Prison Officers Association staff enjoy good working relations with the management and where many Opposition Members might have a happy stay.

Mr. Wardle: I am sure that if I do not get an opportunity to take up my hon. Friend's kind invitation, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the prison building programme has worked, we have got rid of the problem of three in a cell, as we were advised to do, and the system is working far better than before.

Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the Minister's optimism about the prison building programme, may I ask whether he is now prepared to sink his plan for prison ships?

Mr. Wardle: That is no more than a contingency plan. There are contingency plans in any well-run organisation. I should have liked to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the plans for Fazakerley prison, a privately financed establishment that will be only the second prison in Merseyside. There are more in Kent. The House will be aware that Lord Woolf said a few years ago that it is better to accommodate prisoners not on prison ships but as near as possible to their families. That is what Fazakerley will be all about. It is a good illustration.

Police, Cheshire

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit the Cheshire constabulary to discuss his current legislative proposals affecting the police; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: I visited Blacon police station, in my hon. Friend's constituency on 9 May, where I had the opportunity to discuss a wide range of questions with the local police.

Mr. Brandreth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit the fine community of Blacon and for taking time to talk to the police and members of the community about their concerns. Is he aware of the fact that in the city of Chester the crime rate is now down and the detection rate up? The police officers in Chester welcome every addition to their armoury in the fight against crime—a fight which they are waging with increasing success.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. The police officers I met in Blacon were keen to tell me about their progress in the fight against crime and of the high regard in which my hon. Friend is held.

Mr. Miller: It is a pity that while the Home Secretary was visiting my constituency—he was launching the European campaign of the local candidate, who is likely to fail—he did not take the trouble to meet the chief constable. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman congratulate Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council on the work that it is doing, in conjunction with many local companies, to dissuade young people from getting involved in dangerous activities that take up the time of railway police and the fire brigade and inconvenience many businesses? Will he also congratulate the "Pioneer" newspaper on its work on drugs?

Mr. Howard: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the occasion that took me to his constituency—the launch of the candidacy of David Senior, the excellent Conservative candidate for that Euro-seat—was extremely well attended. All those who were present will be campaigning vigorously for Mr. Senior as soon as the current truce is over.

Crime Prevention Schemes

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to fund crime prevention schemes.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The Government already fund and support a significant number of programmes and projects linked to crime prevention. In line with the manifesto commitment, 10 new safer cities projects have been set up and a total of up to 40 are planned.

Mr. Soley: Is not it time to adopt a coherent strategy on crime prevention and its funding? The White City estate in my area, for instance, reduced the burglary rate by 61 per cent. over two years by means of co-operation between the local police and the council, which was funded by the council and the estates action programme. However, urban funding—which provides much of the money—is being phased out, and programmes such as "keep safe" will be lost. When will the Home Office put its money where its mouth is and start protecting people from crime by providing a properly funded crime prevention programme?

Mr. Wardle: It would have been nice if the hon. Gentleman had mentioned the Hammersmith and Fulham safer cities project, which funded 85 crime prevention schemes at a cost of £600,000. He will know that, to date, safer cities projects have incurred a cost of £21.5 million, of which £7 million has been spent by local authorities.
We have a comprehensive crime prevention strategy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary talked earlier about the expenditure across Whitehall as a whole. That does not include the more than £6,000 million spent on the police, some of which goes towards crime prevention, as it is one of their primary statutory duties.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: This afternoon in the House, strong support has been expressed for the funding of a new crime prevention scheme—the introduction of identity cards. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that practical difficulties can be overcome, particularly as what worked perfectly well in the 1940s could also work in the 1990s?

Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is why the matter is kept under review.

Jurors

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his plan to prevent those on bail from serving on a jury.

Mr. Maclean: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is currently receiving consideration in another place, provides that people on bail will be banned from jury service.

Mr. Thomason: I welcome that answer. May I take it that my hon. Friend considers it unacceptable for a person to be in the dock one week and in the jury box the next?

Mr. Maclean: Absolutely. That is the main reason why we have taken this sensible step. The Royal Commission on criminal justice also recommended that persons on bail should be disqualified from jury service, and I think that making that necessary change will enhance the status of the criminal justice system.

Crime Statistics

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage change in crime and the increase in police officers in south Wales since 1979.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The number of offences recorded in south Wales increased by 132 per cent. between 1979 and 1993. At the end of February 1994, the actual number of police officers in post had increased by 188.

Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that some £40 million of the Home Office's allocation to South Wales police authority has been nicked by the Welsh Office on its way to the authority, which has been underfunded by that amount for the past six years? Does he realise that that is having a devastating impact on local policing? Crime has soared by 135 per cent. since 1979, when the Minister's Government came to power.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the financial difficulties faced by South Wales police authority emanate from inaccurate budgeting, which deprived the South Wales police force of £2 million last year. In addition, the chief constable had asked for an extra 8 per cent; he was given 2 per cent.
Centrally funded grant provision for this year would have allowed a further 5.5 per cent. increase in spending. If the South Wales police authority had matched that amount, a further £5 million would have been available, at a cost of £800,000 to each of the three Glamorgan county councils, whose total aggregate spending is £900 million, but the authority did not do that—it provided 1.75 per cent.

Youth Crime

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to deter youth crime.

Mr. Maclean: A wide range of action is in hand at both national and local level, which is intended to prevent or deter juvenile crime.

Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are thoroughly fed up with the way in which a number of youngsters are making their lives a misery? May I assure him that, contrary to what some Labour Members might think, my constituents—indeed, all members of the general public—are delighted that the Government are taking measures to tackle the problem of bail bandits and to introduce the concept of secure units? Is he further aware that what my constituents really want is the introduction of corporal punishment?

Mr. Maclean: The House will be aware that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, with strong

measures to deal with juvenile crime, received a majority of 176 in this House. That is a measure of the support in the House of Commons for it. I hope that those who are scrutinising that Bill will look carefully at the strong importance that the House has attached to dealing with persistent juvenile offenders, and reflect carefully before making any changes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hain: Did the Prime Minister personally obtain the permission of Her Majesty the Queen to privatise the Royal Mail?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about the Royal Mail shortly. I have no doubt that he will deal with all the matters that concern the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the statement by the French Government that they propose to remove a part of their forces in Bosnia by the year end if there is not more rapid progress towards a political settlement and if other countries do not provide greater assistance. What is the British Government's response to that?

The Prime Minister: What the French Government have said is not that they are going to withdraw all their troops from Bosnia at the end of the year but that they propose to reduce by 1,000 their troops in Croatia, and a small number of further troops—I think 1,500—from Bihac. Even when those reductions have been made, the French will still be the largest troop contributors to the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom Government, of course, come second. We have no intention at the moment of removing our troops, although, of course, their safety at all times is paramount.

Mrs. Beckett: When the Post Office was not even mentioned in the Conservative party election manifesto and the effects of privatisation are causing chaos on British Rail and pushing up gas prices for ordinary families, why are the Government now looking to privatise the Post Office?

The Prime Minister: As I said to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a full statement to the House about the Government's proposals in just a few moments. The right hon. Lady would be well advised to wait for that statement. As to British Rail, I think that she will find that, when it is operating as a privatised concern, as with the other privatised concerns, the service will be infinitely better than it was under nationalised control.

Mrs. Beckett: Contrary to what the Prime Minister says, the experience of most of the British public, particularly in the case of British Rail and of water, is that the end result of privatisation has been higher charges and poorer service. Do the Government never learn?

The Prime Minister: What we see in what the right hon. Lady had to say is the same old knee-jerk opposition to private ownership. It is interesting to see that the same old centralising tendency remains among those on the Opposition Front Bench, just as it always has. What privatisation has produced is better services, profits instead of losses, tax revenue instead of taxpayers' subsidy, and a better service for the consumer. That is because the private sector will run services better.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister realise that the Post Office successfully combines running a profitable business with providing a public service that is of fundamental value to the whole community and that no one can be confident that that service will survive undamaged, especially in rural areas? Is not it another privatisation that is unnecessary, unpopular and unworkable?

The Prime Minister: Once again, in the way that they have done so frequently, right hon. Members make conclusions before they know what is to be proposed and how matters are to be dealt with. Time and again, they have been proven wrong and, on this occasion, they will see how wrong they are very speedily.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed new secure training orders for young offenders are a welcome step in protecting the public from persistent young offenders and will be welcomed by most people?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I think that they will certainly combine an effective punishment with a decent education. What those new centres will offer is the opportunity for young criminals to break away from crime and give the public a break from their offending. I am delighted that that commonsense view is now generally but not, it seems, universally held.

Mr. Ashdown: If, as I hope and believe, the Prime Minister is serious about wishing to use this opportunity permanently to improve the quality of debate in the House, would he be prepared to open discussions and take suggestions about how we might improve these 15 minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time—only a few weeks ago, he described as "ritual confrontation"—in order to make them more informative and more in keeping with what most people want?

The Prime Minister: I think that many people in the country believe that these 15 minutes would be used more effectively on policy matters if questions were asked specifically about matters that must concern the people who watch our proceedings on television or read about them subsequently. I certainly wish that to be the case, but it is a matter for the House and for those who question me rather than for me. I am here to respond to the questions that are asked. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The theory that this time is not always wisely used by the Opposition was most clearly illustrated just now.

Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of our constituents believe that the young American vandal

in Singapore got exactly what he deserved? Will my right hon. Friend consider the new clause that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, designed to prevent that vandal, and every other criminal, profiting from his crime by selling his story to the press?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we are seeking in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a whole series of changes to improve crime and punishment in this country. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will be very popular across the country, and I hope that they will have the full support of the people. I regret that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches still seem to be more concerned for the criminal than for the people against whom the criminal perpetrates his crimes.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister recall the helpful reply that he gave me some weeks ago when I asked a question about the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Why then did he go on to direct, or at least condone, the sleekit and contemptible tactics used by a Minister to scupper the Bill? Has he no remorse for the disabled of this country? Does not he feel that he should allow the Bill to be passed so that disabled people can have basic civil rights?

The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House shares the broad aims of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), but the reality is that the Bill, as has been shown in Committee and subsequently, is unworkable in a number of ways. It would impose immense costs and open up enormous scope for litigation. The people who understand and consider such matters carefully will appreciate that fact.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, for I have told the House on previous occasions, we intend to press ahead with our own proposals, with consultation on a range of measures about discrimination in order to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, provide access to goods and services, to financial services and to buildings and to establish an advisory body on disability. That is the right way to proceed in order to produce measures that genuinely will work and will help disabled people. That is the way that we have proceeded in the past and will proceed in the future.

Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Burns: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for changing the subject, does he agree that the unemployment figures released yesterday and the steady fall in unemployment over the past 12 months is welcome news which shows that our economic recovery is steady and sustainable? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is somewhat strange that when the news is bad about unemployment no one questions the authenticity of the figures but when the news is good and people are getting


back into work some people seek bogusly to take away from that good news by questioning the authenticity of the figures?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a telling point with great clarity. The facts speak for themselves: unemployment is down by about 100,000 over the last three months and it has been down by more than 250,000 over the last year. What has been especially encouraging is that long-term unemployment has been falling as well. What is equally striking is that, while unemployment falls across the whole of the United Kingdom, it is still rising throughout much of Europe. That shows the extent to which our economy has recovered and is continuing to grow, in sharp contrast to most European economies.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister had time this week to read about the seven suicides reported to have been triggered by the actions of the Child Support Agency? An ever-growing number of fathers are giving up work because they cannot afford to pay what the Child Support Agency assesses them for, yet many single mothers are worse off as a result of the agency's activities. Will he now set aside his well-worn and repeated phrase about keeping the activities of the agency "under review" and institute immediate radical reform by bringing new legislation to the House?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we made a number of changes some time ago. It is clearly sensible to let those changes settle down and to get a little more experience of how they are working. The changes were widely welcomed and, in many cases, they reduced the amount of maintenance that absent parents were required to pay. There were a number of other changes that I think that most people would regard as the right way forward.
The hon. Gentleman has now embarked upon the exercise of that useful quality—the wisdom of hindsight. The principle of the legislation is right. It was widely welcomed in the House. We are determined to examine what is happening and make sure that if changes are shown to be necessary, they can continue to be satisfactorily made.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the losses in excess of £2 billion that were announced by Lloyd's of London earlier this week bring its total losses to more than £8 billion for the past three years that accounts are available? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that has led to the suicides of 11 of Lloyd's investors? If it is correct, and it is correct, that there should be an official inquiry into the activities of Mr. Frederick West of 25 Cromwell street, Gloucester, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also right that there should be an official inquiry into the business practices of some professionals at Lloyd's, which have led to the deaths of its investors?

The Prime Minister: As I think that my hon. Friend knows, a number of civil cases relating to Lloyd's are now before the commercial courts. It would be most unwise of me to comment on that issue while that is the case.

Lockerbie

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will have discussions with the German Government about the statements of Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert concerning the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

The Prime Minister: The Scottish prosecuting authorities and police have worked closely with their German counterparts in the course of the Lockerbie investigation. Any discussion of evidence or information that may be relevant to the investigation would be a matter for the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary to pursue with the relevant German authorities.

Mr. Dalyell: So why has Bollier's written request to have a sight of his timers, so that he can determine whether they were in the batch that went to Libya or the batch that went to the Stasi, been turned down?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the recent press reports alleging that both Bollier and Lumpert have additional information on the supply of electric timers to the East German Stasi. The Lord Advocate has taken the view that the available evidence justifies the criminal charges that have been brought against the two Libyans. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that beyond that, I cannot comment on the detail of the available evidence while the criminal investigation is still proceeding.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Engagements

Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Spring: As we congratulate President Mandela on his recent inauguration, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for South Africa's future lies in economic growth and job creation, flowing from a free enterprise system? Does he further agree that policies such as deregulation, competition and privatisation form the best basis for economic success anywhere in the world?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is no surprise that the policies of deregulation, competition and privatisation are now being adopted in every part of the globe. They are certainly being imitated in central and eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. As for South Africa, I wish President Mandela every success in building the strong and stable South Africa that we all wish to see. I am sure that if he pursues those policies, they will assist.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam.
Perhaps I should explain that we were especially anxious that Her Majesty's Opposition should have a proper opportunity to study the statement on the Post Office, and I therefore hope that it will be for the general convenience of the House if I make the business statement now, before the statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
Motion on the Railways Pension Scheme order.
Motion on the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) order.
TUESDAY 24 MAY—Third Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 25 MAY—Motion for the Spring Adjournment.
Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order.
THURSDAY 26 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 25 May to consider European Community documents as follows:
Committee A, document No. 4168/94 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 16 May relating to intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.
Committee B, unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 16 March relating to the discharge of the General Budget for 1992, document No. 6214/94 relating to the fight against fraud in 1993 and document No. 6214/94 ADD1 relating to the anti-fraud strategy and work programme for 1994.

[Wednesday 25 May:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 4168/94, Intra-Community Trade in Bovine Animals and Swine. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-x (1993–94) and HC 48-xviii (1993–94). European Standing Committee B —Relevant European Community documents: (a) Unnumbered, 1992 Budget Discharge; (b) 6214/94, The Fight against Fraud in 1993; 6214/94 ADD1, Anti-Fraud Strategy. Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 48-xiii (1993–94); (b) HC 48–xvii (1993–94) and HC 48–xviii (1993–94).]

Madam Speaker: Before hon. Members put questions to the Leader of the House on the business statement, they may find it helpful to know that, in view of the changed date for the rising of the House, Northern Ireland questions, which were to have been taken on Thursday 26 May, will now be taken on Thursday 16 June and that there

will be consequential alterations to the rota for subsequent Thursdays. A revised rota will be published as soon as possible.
Since those hon. Members who are interested in Northern Ireland questions will have had insufficient notice to table questions today for 16 June, arrangements have been made for questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to be tabled next Tuesday 24 May, when there is Northern Ireland business. Questions to the Prime Minister for 16 June are unaffected and should be tabled today. Full details are available at the Table Office and hon. Members are advised to consult that office if they are in any doubt.
Secondly, I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 26 May, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Brown: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your statement, and I thank the Lord President for his statement. May I especially thank him personally and the Government's business managers for rearranging the business for next Thursday and today? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be attending John Smith's funeral service, either in Edinburgh or in one of the regional centres, tomorrow. Would not it have been possible to have postponed business or scheduled tomorrow's business for some other occasion so that tomorrow would have been entirely free of business?
On a more controversial matter, may I raise with the Leader of the House a request for a statement from the Minister for the civil service, dealing with the use of civil service time to draft wrecking amendments for Conservative Back Benchers to table for private Members' Bills? If the Government are opposed to a private Member's Bill, for reasons that they no doubt regard as legitimate, surely they should stand up and say so and not use the civil service in such a hole-in-corner, blatant, party political manner.
The Leader of the House will have noticed the resonance in the House caused by the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) at Prime Minister's Question Time last Tuesday, as he will have noticed the resonance caused by the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) in the House today concerning the Child Support Agency. He will have seen today's comment from the Chairman of the Social Services Committee, who has described the Child Support Agency as "a spectacular failure". May we have a debate on the agency and a statement of the Government's plans for reforms?
Finally, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to reconvene the previous meeting that was held to discuss the Jopling report with a view to achieving a consensus and making progress?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman referred to resonance in the House. It is clear that his final remarks drew just such a resonance. He will know—I think that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will not mind me mentioning it—that I was due to have a meeting with her on Thursday, but for reasons that the


whole House will well understand it was not possible to have it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he hopes to be able to meet me and I, in turn, hope to arrange that for next week. Therefore, we are all keen—[Interruption.] Well, nearly all as I had better not speak for those below the Gangway—to make progress on those matters.
I do not think that I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago about the Child Support Agency.
On the question of the drafting of amendments—the hon. Gentleman referred to the need for my right hon. Friend to say something—I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the letter that the head of the civil service recently wrote to his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the Opposition spokesman on those matters, making it clear that there was nothing improper in Ministers asking civil servants to assist in the preparation of Bills, or amendments to Bills, including private Members' Bills, whether they are to be tabled by the Government or handed to Back-Bench sponsors or, as was eventually decided in that case, to other Back Benchers.
Tomorrow's business is, of course, governed by Sessional Orders passed by the House some months ago.
Lastly, on perhaps a happier note, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about our response to the unhappy circumstances with which we have all been faced this week. I am glad that we have been able to make a number of helpful adjustments to Government business.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time next week to discuss planning? There is a particular worry in my constituency about unwanted planning applications from Tesco and Sainsbury for super-stores on the edge of communities, with the potential for ripping the heart out of those communities. A debate would be a good opportunity for me to vent my spleen about the behaviour of those two super-stores.

Mr. Newton: Although I cannot promise precisely that opportunity next week, I point out that there are a number of opportunities for many matters to be raised. I hesitate to encourage my hon. Friend to vent his spleen on me in the debate on the Spring Adjournment. Should he do so, I shall endeavour to ensure that I am armed with some kind of comment.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to the exchange between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about procedure, what is to prevent the Leader of the House from introducing next week draft amendments to the Standing Orders of this place and inviting the House to vote on them on a free, unwhipped vote so that we can make the urgent changes to procedure for which, I am sure, there is widespread support throughout the House?

Mr. Newton: I know that that suggestion is intended to be helpful and I take it as a useful indication of the hon. Gentleman's strong support for reform. He will have heard my exchange with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). That is the sensible next step.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the calls that have been made from two major parties in the House for amendment to the way in which the Child Support Agency operates? Although we fully support the

objective that absent parents, whether fathers or mothers, should pay towards the cost of the upkeep of their children, the way in which the agency is operating is a disgrace and an abuse of the power that the House gave it. The Government must act, not next week but this week, to rectify the injustices currently being perpetrated by the agency.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like others, will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has his attention drawn to his remarks. I know that Ministers are carefully considering the points made in the House.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the very important statement containing amplifications and clarifications of the Downing street declaration which we understand from the press is to be made by written answer will be dealt with in the House so that there will be an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and that it will not simply be pushed away along with other matters that may be appropriate for a written answer? The matter is important not only here but all over the world. There is great interest in the prospects for peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will look carefully at what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There will be an opportunity to refer to Northern Ireland matters next week, although whether precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind would be in order is not perhaps for me to say.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Although I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot give an undertaking on this, may I ask that, when he considers the business for Monday 13 June, he bears in mind the fact that the Lords v. Commons tug of war is to take place at 7.15 pm? It is expected to raise a substantial sum for the Macmillan cancer appeal.

Madam Speaker: That is perhaps a matter for advertisement in The House Magazine.

Mr. Newton: I can certainly undertake to my hon. Friend, whose vigorous support for this and a number of other causes is well known, that I shall bear the point in mind. I cannot go quite so far as to say that it will be the decisive factor.

Mr. Roger Berry: Will the Leader of the House please confirm that he will provide time next week for the completion of the remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, given that on 29 April the House, without any opposition from the Government, called for time to be made available? In addition, contrary to what the Prime Minister said today, the alleged deficiencies and certainly the cost implications were not debated in Committee because the cost compliance assessment was not provided by the Government for the Committee. The Government did not, in fact, oppose a single clause of the Bill in Committee. Should not we have time now to complete the remaining stages?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks. My right


hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government's purpose is constructive but that they see the way forward as being slightly different from the way in which the hon. Gentleman sees it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the important decision of a Committee of the House to veto the Crossrail Bill? Crossrail is essential for west London, for my constituency and for other areas, with 60,000 jobs and general prosperity being created on both sides of London. Perhaps the debate could centre on early-day motion 1215.
[That this House expresses its dismay at the decision of the Committee on the Crossrail Bill; reaffirms its strong support for the Crossrail project which will provide better public transport and many thousands of new jobs for people in London and the South East and which will help provide London with the infrastructure it requires as one of the world's leading financial and commercial cities; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward urgently the necessary measures to ensure this project proceeds without delay.]
That motion is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether it will bring any comfort to my hon. Friend, but this is a matter of some concern in my Braintree constituency also.
The Government have consistently made clear their commitment to the project, and they share the disappointment about the action of the Committee. The commitment remains, and we are currently having discussions with the promoters of the Bill about how best to proceed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm what I think he said a few moments ago—that it was entirely legitimate for a Minister of the Crown to cause amendments under public money to be drafted by parliamentary counsel and then passed to private Members for a private Member's Bill? If he did—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman phrase his question in a different way so that it relates to business next week, as this is business questions?

Mr. Spearing: During a debate next week, will the Leader of the House confirm what he said earlier on the matter which I have just raised? Is not it against the traditions of the House for the Crown to spend public money on interfering and stifling the political and legislative initiative of private Members who are sent here by the public?

Mr. Newton: I simply quoted directly from a letter from the Secretary to the Cabinet to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who raised the matter with him.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a report on the parliamentary data and video network has been completed by the Information Committee, but that no debate has yet been arranged? The whole data network system in the House will come to a full stop until that is possible. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that steps will be taken so that hon. Members can chase up Ministers by electronic mail on behalf of their

constituents? That would greatly speed up the process, and would abolish the need for the enormous amounts of paper which are used, and stop trees being cut down.

Mr. Newton: I am always anxious to assist my hon. Friend in any way in the vigorous pursuit of his duties. I hope at an appropriate time to arrange a debate on the report, but some consideration is still being given to the matter by the appropriate committees, including the Finance and Services Committee.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reverse the decision to have an extra day off next Friday in view of the fact that the Government say that there is not enough time to debate the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is not it a kick in the teeth for the disabled that the House is getting up a day early when we could have debated that Bill? The Government are under instructions to give that Bill extra time. Surely Friday would be a suitable occasion for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman revise what he said and give that Bill time so we can get it on the statute book to help 6.5 million disabled people, instead of kicking their crutches away?

Mr. Newton: If I may say so, I made no reference whatever to questions of time or shortage of time in responding to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Britain has been in the forefront of Europe in introducing measures for casualty reduction on our roads. When the Department of Transport shortly publishes its report on introducing seat belts into minibuses and coaches, will my right hon. Friend try to find time to debate the issue so that Britain may be in the forefront on this issue too?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly give consideration to that matter. My hon. Friend is right to say that this country has been in the forefront of Europe, and one of the outstanding achievements of recent years has been the reduction of deaths on the roads.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I urge the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate next week on the future of the civil service in view of reports this morning that the Government plan to place senior officials on fixed, short-term contracts? Before the civil service is further casualised and, I fear, politicised, will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that the Government will listen to the views of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, and to the views of the House as a whole, before they reach any further conclusions on the matter?

Mr. Newton: The Government always look very carefully at anything that any Select Committee says.

Mr. Simon Coombs: May I support the call of other hon. Members for a debate, at an early date, on the Child Support Agency? May I remind my right hon. Friend that about a year ago he was good enough to arrange a debate on the United Kingdom tourist industry during which the then Minister with responsibility for tourism —my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) —said that he very much hoped that it would become an


annual event. Does my right hon. Friend share our hon. Friend's hope, which is also my hope, and can he provide time for a debate on tourism before too long?

Mr. Newton: I share the hope, but I cannot yet say that it is necessarily an expectation.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it possible for the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to make a further statement next week, bearing in mind that information has now emerged that the amendments provided by parliamentary counsel for Tory Back Benchers to wreck the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill were prepared some 16 days before the Minister made a statement to the House saying that his Department had no knowledge of the matter?
Does not the Leader of the House understand the feeling of disgust throughout the country at the fact that the Government have used every underhand method to try to wreck 'a Bill that would help the disabled? The Minister should give an explanation and, in my view, he should resign.

Mr. Newton: The fact that the drafting of the amendments was set in hand shortly after the Bill emerged from Committee was clearly and straightforwardly stated in my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Yesterday's answer added nothing new in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
As for the rest, I simply say that my right hon. Friend, in a letter to the hon. Member for Workington, acknowledged an error and he made a personal statement and gave an unreserved apology to the House. In my judgment, the matter should be left there.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the Secretary of State consider providing time—if not next week, some time in the near future—for a debate on unemployment in the Northern region? The Secretary of State for Unemployment—[Interruption.] Employment—although I got it right the first time—has been in great voice this week about the drop in unemployment nationally, which the Prime Minister confirmed today, but there is a problem in the Northern region. In my constituency the figures for February-March show that male unemployment has risen by 540 while female unemployment has dropped by 49, most of it due to part-time work. Those figures reflect the position throughout Northumberland and, indeed, the Northern region. We deserve a debate on unemployment in the Northern region.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had considerable involvement with the Northern region over a long period and I certainly would not just dismiss his concern. However, I must express some pride at the amount of new manufacturing industry that has been brought to the north in recent years.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), will my right hon. Friend take time next week to discuss the matter with our hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), whose commitment to the disabled is second to none in this House, and who on the radio this morning said that he believed that the vendetta being

waged by some people against our right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People should be stopped forthwith?

Mr. Newton: I did not hear those remarks, but I certainly echo both the comments that my hon. Friend made about our hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and the remarks that he attributes to him. I would add one thing. While the tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter was entirely due, it would also be right to say that there are not many who have made a greater contribution to advancing the cause of the disabled than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.

Mr. David Trimble: I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the debate proposed for Tuesday evening and ask him to reconsider it. The report of Mr. J. J. Rowe QC into the operation of the emergency provisions Act of 1993 was placed in the Library only late on Monday night and as of yesterday it was not available in the Vote Office. Nevertheless, there is to be a debate on Tuesday evening on that important matter, which should be properly considered by the House. There is plenty of time —the order does not have to be made until the end of June. Surely it would better enable the House to give fuller consideration to the report and to the debate if it was postponed.

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to postpone the debate, but immediately I am able to do so I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the availability of documents.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that we have established from the letter of 13 May that we have just received from Robin Butler to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that Back Benchers can have drafting assistance from parliamentary counsel, could such assistance be put on a more solid basis? Could the service be advertised to Members and, in future, where clearly there are drafting problems with amendments tabled by Opposition Members, could we go to parliamentary counsel at public expense—[Interruption.] Perhaps we can have a statement on the matter next week, Madam Speaker. Could we go to parliamentary counsel at parliamentary expense to ensure that Ministers cannot knock our amendments down on the basis that they are badly drafted? Could such a service be put on a proper footing to help Opposition Back Benchers? Perhaps we could have a statement from the Dispatch Box on the matter next week.

Mr. Newton: I find myself slightly puzzled because the hon. Gentleman has been here a considerable time. It remains the case that parliamentary counsel draft on the authority of Ministers, but that help is often given on that authority to Back Benchers on both sides of the House. A whole set of Bills currently before the House or recently passed by the House were drafted by parliamentary counsel.

Dr. Tony Wright: As we are about to have a statement on the Post Office, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be more sensible if all Members received the written statement ahead of the oral statement? At present only some Members receive the


written statement in advance. Would not it be far more sensible to proceed in the other way? Will the Leader of the House inaugurate that practice from next week's business?

Mr. Newton: Consideration of that proposal would, in the first instance, be for the Procedure Committee. Obviously, we would consider carefully any recommendation. I can make no commitment. The existing convention, which is part of the usual channels, is that copies of the statement are made available a reasonable time in advance to the Opposition Front Bench. One reason for the fact that the business statement is being made now rather than when earlier advertised is to provide time for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to study the statement that he is now studying.

Mr. Harry Barnes: When a resolution of the House has been passed by due procedure, should not it be acted upon? A motion in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) was passed on 29 April. Should not we have a full debate? If the Government are against the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, should not they have the guts to vote it down while the rest of us have an opportunity to support it?

Mr. Newton: The motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers was explicitly framed as an expression of opinion. It does not bind the Government any more than it overturns the Sessional Order of the House about the time for private Members' Bills. I cannot add to what I and, before me, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the Government's approach to the Bill and their desire to advance the cause of disabled people in constructive, workable and practical ways.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend next week read the report of the Procedure Committee which recommends, not that statements should be made available in advance, because statements are often altered at the last moment, but that all documents relating to a statement should be published not after the statement is made but 15 minutes before so that Members may have access to them? That is a recommendation of the Procedure Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it most fully.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend knows that I always consider as constructively as I can his Committee's proposals. I see some difficulties with the one to which he refers. It is different from the proposal that was put to me. If I remember rightly, the Procedure Committee's report explicitly did not cover written statements and said that the Committee did not believe that it was appropriate for them to be available in advance.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not all Bills that come before the House which are drafted by parliamentary counsel are perfect? Would not it be better for parliamentary counsel to be dislodged from their ivory tower to allow Members of Parliament to have more direct access to them?

Mr. Newton: I should be the last person to suggest that no Bill ever coming before the House that had been drafted by parliamentary counsel was perfect in every respect, but I am not sure that the conclusion that my hon. Friend seeks to draw would necessarily follow.

Post Office

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office.
On 29 July 1992, I announced that the Government would be considering the future structure and organisation of the Post Office. I made it clear then that we would consider a variety of options both in the public and private sectors. In March, the Trade and Industry Committee published a report on the future of the Post Office. We have considered that carefully.
The Government have now decided that they will shortly publish a Green Paper setting out the issues in full and outlining the options for change. In view of the intense speculation of the past two days, however, I thought it important that I should make this early report to the House.
The Post Office is an essential part of our national life. It provides at least one daily delivery of mail throughout the country at a uniform tariff, which is the same regardless of whether one lives in Westminster or the Western Isles. It handles some 60 million items of mail per day. Perhaps most important of all, it maintains a network of some 20,000 post offices which serve their local communities in a way that no other organisation can match.
The Government therefore made their consideration of the future of the Post Office subject to three vital and non-negotiable commitments, all of which we clearly set out in our manifesto. These are, first, the maintenance of a nationwide letter and parcel service with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom; secondly, a uniform and affordable structure of prices; and, thirdly, a nationwide network of post offices. Under no circumstances would we put those commitments at risk.
There are three principal businesses of the Post Office: Post Office Counters, the Royal Mail and Parcelforce. The Green Paper will outline a number of options, but I can announce some firm decisions today.
Let me begin with the Counters business. Every Member of the House is well aware of the vital importance of the network of post offices, particularly in rural areas, but also in our towns and cities. The Government fully recognise the key role that they perform in our communities. That is why the maintenance of a nationwide network is non-negotiable.
The Counters business is essentially a partnership between the public and private sectors. The central core, which negotiates contracts and provides back-up services, is Government owned. But the vast majority of post offices —all but some 800 of the 20,000 outlets—are privately run sub-post offices operating under an agency agreement.
The Government can see no case for changing that structure. It works well. It ensures that the Government retain the necessary control over the maintenance of the nationwide network. It also allows for private sector initiative at local level where the local post office is at the heart of local communities.
During the review, however, the case has been put forcefully, particularly by the National Federation of Sub Postmasters, that the commercial prospects of the post office network need reinforcement. I understand and share that view. Most post offices are small shops, and the Government understand the pressures on such shops as a


result of social change. We therefore intend to proceed with two measures specifically designed to improve their position.
First, we will be giving Post Office Counters greater freedom in future to seek new clients from the private sector to supplement their existing client base, which consists largely of public sector bodies. The best way of maintaining the network is to give it freedom to compete for new business on fair terms, and thus increase the spread and scale of its activities. The Green Paper will set out our proposals.
Secondly, we propose to automate many of the clerical procedures that lie behind much of the business of the network. These procedures—particularly those related to the payment of benefits—have been unchanged for decades. Work is thus under way between the Counters business and the Benefits Agency to devise a method of automating the payment of social security benefits. That will provide not only an extremely cost-effective way of paying benefits, but an electronic platform in post offices enabling the business to provide enhanced services for all its clients, new and old.
Work on that project is at an early stage, but we are looking to extend the public/private sector partnership by the involvement of the private sector in the management and funding of the project.
I should like to comment on the relationship between Post Office Counters and the Royal Mail. The Royal Mail does not cross-subsidise post offices. Post Office Counters has been run as an independent business since 1986 and has been profitable throughout that period. Some post offices in rural areas do, of course, make a loss on a strict accounting basis. Post Office Counters has existing powers to support such post offices. Indeed, at the present time, 2,700, of which 1,800 are part time, are already supported by a flat fee, regardless of the business that they undertake.
Post Office Counters and its clients see the nationwide network not as a liability, but as an asset which enables it to provide a unique service to villages and hamlets throughout the land. It enables the Benefits Agency, for example, to provide a service for the millions of people who have no bank accounts and live in remote areas.
The business link with the Royal Mail is also important, although Members may be interested to know that only about 25 per cent. of Post Office Counters' turnover comes from the Royal Mail. In any proposals, however, the Government will require the Royal Mail to continue to use post offices, as they do at present.
I shall now turn to the Royal Mail, which accounts for more than 70 per cent. of Post Office turnover. It is the most efficient postal service in Europe. It is a modern, profitable business and it is looking to expand into what is rapidly becoming a European and even a world market for postal services. That is in itself only a part of a global communications market that is one of the most innovative industrial sectors of all.
The Post Office board wishes the Royal Mail to be free of many of its constraints. Indeed, the board has made it clear that the increasing competition in its marketplace is beginning to pose a real threat to its ability to maintain its current performance. In its recent report, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry accepted that argument. The Government also recognise the case for change.
The Green Paper will set out the options, showing the advantages and disadvantages and, in particular, the case for retaining a substantial minority shareholding in a newly

created public company. In addition, preferential share entitlements for the employees of the post office and sub-postmasters would ensure that a significant holding of shares would be in the hands of those people most immediately concerned with the future of the business.
The Green Paper will also set out an option for retaining the business in the public sector, but extending its commercial freedom as far as is consistent with continued public sector status.
Let me emphasise that none of those options would in any way reduce the social obligations placed on the Royal Mail. To ensure this, any legislation would set up a regulatory system to ensure that those obligations were properly defined and policed. The Government's commitments to universal delivery, six days a week to every household, with a uniform and affordable tariff remain non-negotiable and would be written on the face of the legislation.
Tariffs would be controlled through regulation. Experience has shown that social commitments can be delivered through strong regulation; for example, regulation requires BT to provide telephone boxes in rural areas. In the same way, it would be our intention to require the Royal Mail to maintain its letter services in rural areas.
I turn now to Parcelforce. I announced on 15 July 1992 the Government's intention to privatise Parcelforce, which already operates in a fully competitive market. Work has been going on since then on the best method and timing of the sale of Parcelforce. Of necessity, we have done so in the light of the Post Office review. It would be possible to continue with our original plans, but there are important synergies between Parcelforce and the Royal Mail. The Government have decided in include Parcelforce in their new proposals for the Royal Mail. We shall, of course, pay particular attention to the need to avoid any unfair cross-subsidy from the Royal Mail to Parcelforce.
Before concluding, may I reassure the House on three specific points? First, it has been suggested that any change of status would lead to VAT on stamps. That is simply wrong. I can assure the House that, under any proposals that we finally adopt, stamps will continue to be exempt from value added tax.
Secondly, I can assure the House that all existing pension rights will be preserved in any case.
Thirdly, the House will be aware that the Post Office, and in particular the Royal Mail, has long had important connections with the monarch. I am pleased to announce to the House that, after consultation, Her Majesty has agreed that, if a public sale option were to be pursued, Royal Mail would be given permission to use a depiction of Her Majesty's head on postage stamps, to use the royal emblems, the Crown and the Cypher and to be registered as Royal Mail plc at Companies House.
I will soon bring forward a Green Paper setting out the options and the Government's preferred proposals. It will allow an opportunity for a full public debate on this complex area.
We are committed to increasing the opportunities for the Post Office and Post Office network, and to ensure that the national standard of service is maintained. We will wish to ensure in any change that the interests of the consumer continue to be protected by effective regulation.
There is common accord that major change is needed if the Royal Mail is to meet the growing competitive threat that it faces.
The Government believe it important to allow the Royal Mail to build on the excellence of its reputation and to compete both at home and internationally where the quality of its achievements and the reputation it enjoys offer an exciting future. We hope to make rapid progress to enable this major British organisation to achieve its ambitions.

Mr. Robin Cook: The President will acknowledge that he has spent two years and £1 million on consultation over the future of the Post Office. He will also concede that his main announcement this afternoon is that he has reached the conclusion that he requires further consultation on the future of the Post Office.
Has the right hon. Gentleman not heard the chairman of the Post Office say that the delay is a millstone round the Post Office which needs to be removed if it is not to grind to a halt? That chairman and the management of the Post Office were entitled to more decisive action from the President, who purports to lead British industry, than the announcement of a Green Paper.
Just so that the House is clear that the President's heart is in the Green Paper, can he assure the House that he went to the Cabinet this morning to argue for permission to publish a Green Paper that he cannot print today?
I welcome the President's commitment to give commercial freedom within public ownership to Post Office Counters. I particularly welcome it, as it is the option that he told the Select Committee in January was not feasible. Now that he has decided that that option is feasible, why can he not agree to applying the same option to the Royal Mail? Does he not recognise that if he agreed to the same solution for the Royal Mail, he would have unanimous support throughout the House?

Mr. Keith Mans: No, he would not.

Mr. Cook: He would have unanimous support from everybody except those whose votes he will need if he wants to become leader—[Interruption.] I am happy to say that he is welcome to those votes.
If the President wants that solution, he does not need a Green Paper, as we could agree to it this afternoon. His only reason for wishing to present a Green Paper is to keep open the option of privatisation. Is not the real reason why he does not announce his decision today the fact that the Government are terrified of announcing the privatisation of the Post Office while the public still have a chance to vote on it at the forthcoming election?
I warn the President that he will never sell to the public the idea of privatising the Post Office. [Interruption.] I notice that Conservative Members did not try to sell it at the last general election, when they did not breathe a word of it in their manifesto. The President will not sell the idea to the public because the public know that privatisation would end the uniform tariff on postage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can the President tell us how the assurance that he has given the House today on the uniform tariff for postage differs from the assurance on the uniform tariff on gas when the Government privatised British Gas? Does he not know that, only last week, his Department gave the green light to British Gas to charge more to remote regions? For how many years after privatisation would it remain possible to post a letter at the same price from any part of Britain to any address in Britain?
The President will not succeed in selling privatisation to the public because the public know that privatisation would threaten their local post office branches—[Interruption.] Oh yes, oh yes. Does he really believe that a separate, privatised mail company will continue to collect and deliver mail at a loss from post office branches with a small turnover? If he does, is he prepared to guarantee that each of the 20,000 post offices would be involved in that collection?
The President rightly acknowledged that the Post Office is a public sector success story. It provides the best letter service in Europe at one of the cheapest prices. It does not need a penny subsidy from the Treasury, but for 20 years has subsidised the Treasury with profits. Why cannot the Government accept that the simple logic of that success is that the best place for the Post Office is in the public sector? If they cannot accept that, I warn them that we shall lead the national campaign to demand that the Post Office stays where it belongs—owned by the public, in the public sector and providing a service to the public.

Mr. Heseltine: I came here this afternoon intent on discussing the Post Office and its future. Suddenly, the issue of leadership has been raised. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to suggest a Green Paper on leadership. I understand the machinations of the political truce, which I thought the hon. Gentleman was only too keen to advocate in the House. The hon. Gentleman wants not a Green Paper but the reddest possible paper that he can lay his hands on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I came here to get on with it, but the hon. Member for Livingston apparently had his mind on a totally different constituency from the one in which we are interested. Having considered his ambitions and what he had to say, I must say with all my heart—and I speak for all my hon. and right hon. Friends—that I wish him the very best of luck. I would go even further: he may launch a campaign in the country; I shall launch one in the country to help him achieve what he is so obviously trying to achieve.
It is incumbent upon us in the House to take—[Interruption.] I am sorry that there is so much turmoil among Opposition Members. I thought that they were genuinely interested in the success of this great industry. The industry is entitled to the most serious consideration of the House.
May I answer the first question put to me by the hon. Member for Livingston which was relevant to the subject under consideration? Yes, this morning I asked the Cabinet for support for a Green Paper and I am delighted that Cabinet members were prepared to go along with my proposals. It is important that the widest range of issues and opportunities involved be explored and that the public understand what is going on. We must listen to people's ideas and take account of the strengths and disadvantages of those ideas.
I pay tribute to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which conducted a most thorough investigation into the matter. The House must realise that there is no option called the status quo. If we try to preserve the status quo, the erosion of the Post Office's market share will be continued by the private sector, which is now providing an increasing number of ever-more sophisticated services. Thus, it is eating into the ability of the Post Office.
One of the options available to us is a move to the private sector, while another apparently gives more


discretion within the public sector. But any public sector option would involve the borrowing of money on the back of Treasury guarantees and would, therefore, produce a particular dilemma for all those private sector companies that have to raise money in their own names and compete fairly in the marketplace. One of the most powerful arguments advanced by the management of the Post Office is based on its desire to become a world-class player in a world which will increasingly see a shrinking number of major companies competing.
I should like to mention the matter in respect of which I part company most profoundly with the hon. Gentleman. He points, quite rightly, to the remarkable success achieved by the management of the Post Office within the domestic framework of Britain in providing a service that is much admired. But the management of the Post Office is looking for enhanced freedoms, including the ability to go out into the marketplace and win for Britain. Classically, the Labour party finds every conceivable reason for preventing just that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The initial exchanges have taken more than 20 minutes. I am now looking for brisk questions and very brisk answers.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on dealing so effectively with the leadership nonsense that came from the Opposition.
How long does my right hon. Friend think the consultation process is likely to take, bearing in mind the fact that he, like the Select Committee, evidently recognises the urgency of enabling the Post Office to compete in the world market in which it must operate?

Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who, as he played a significant role in the Select Committee's deliberations, is aware of the urgency of this matter. We shall produce the Green Paper as quickly as possible—within not many weeks—and shall urgently reach the conclusions that flow from it. We understand the need to make up our minds.

Mr. Alex Carlile: With his usual eloquence, the right hon. Gentleman ensured that the first five pages of his statement were a eulogy of the Post Office's services. Before selling the depiction of Her Majesty's head to the highest bidder, will he explain how he proposes to guarantee the integrity of the delivery service in rural areas? Does he propose that there should be a privatised monopoly? Does he propose that there should be a regionalised monopoly? Does he propose that there should be competition within localities? If there is to be competition within localities, how on earth will the regulator be able to ensure a daily delivery by a postman or a postwoman for people living in remote rural areas?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at present many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses work long hours for nothing for Post Office Counters? Will he see that the regulator ensures proper contractual arm's-length negotiation?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a number of important issues. I assure him that we shall not be prepared to make the changes that we might, after consultation, be prepared to consider unless we are able, by contract and under statute, to ensure the universal

delivery of services. There will be a tough regulatory process to ensure that, if the single-company option is adopted, the company will be statutorily charged with responsibility for delivering services.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Monopoly.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. and learned Member says that that would be a monopoly. I wonder where he has been. The dilemma that we face is that an increasing range of services in every part of the country are competing with the Post Office. We see it every day—different services, international services, overseas companies. It is very important that, whatever we decide to do, the public should be assured, from the very beginning, of the absolute sine qua non: there will be a regular six-day-a-week delivery at a uniform tariff across the country.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will consider his proposals to be rather like the curate's egg—good in parts? They will be much encouraged by the proposals for rural sub-post offices: the extension of their services will enable them to play a greater part in the local community. My constituents will also be encouraged by the fact that postmen and women employed by the Royal Mail will have an opportunity to buy a stake in their own business. They would be even more reassured, however, if the Government said that they would retain their shareholding, to ensure an excellent arrangement between the public and private sectors.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her constructive analysis, with which I agree. The Government have made it clear that one of the options that we shall present involves a very large minority shareholding; furthermore, if we adopted that option, it would also give employees of the business a substantial opportunity to gain a shareholding. The combination of those opportunities would mean that, overall, the interests of those immediately concerned would have an important influence on the future of the organisation.

Mr. Richard Caborn: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for announcing the Green Paper, for two reasons. First, it will at least move the arguments on, and—we hope—bring about an early decision. Secondly, it suggests that the right hon. Gentleman has experienced a fairly substantial change of mind: when he spoke to the Select Committee, he was clearly in favour of privatisation and had ruled out commercialisation.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, will he consider keeping the whole of the Post Office together if that option emerges from consultation on the Green Paper? There is a strong industrial logic for keeping the three component parts together. Secondly, in considering commercialisation, will the Government refer to models such as Nuclear Electric, British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the BBC and BP Burmah—models that can work effectively without going into the private sector?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that BT, which he mentioned, is now in the private sector and is very successful.

Mr. Caborn: I mentioned BP.

Mr. Heseltine: BP is also in the private sector. BP and BT are both in the private sector, which means that a large number of British citizens own shares in those companies. The hon. Gentleman happened to choose two companies that—in the name of this country—are world class, trading internationally to the immense benefit of the country. Let me add—as the hon. Gentleman raised the matter—that, since its privatisation, BT has provided a range of services at a lower price than people would have believed possible at the time of that privatisation.
Of course, when a Government publish a Green Paper they are inviting consultation; but, in the course of the Green Paper debate, the Government are likely to present their own ideas about what they think the future should be. I understand the hon. Gentleman's view—he has studied the matter carefully—and I shall consider to what extent the Green Paper should reasonably reflect an option that, on the surface, is not immediately attractive.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people living in peripheral regions of the United Kingdom are becoming increasingly apprehensive about the effects of privatisation —or part-privatisation—following the introduction of regional differential pricing for electricity and gas? Does he accept that relieving the existing Treasury constraints on the Post Office is the most satisfactory way of achieving the objectives that we all seek for the organisation?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend; I know that he has taken a particular interest in the matter. I can give him a categorical assurance that there will be no regional differential in the charges relating to the universal delivery on which I have given the House an assurance.

Mr. John McWilliam: Will the President of the Board of Trade reconsider those last words? His predecessors in other Departments have given precisely the same reassurance, and it has proved unfounded in many instances. Will the right hon. Gentleman also think very carefully about what he is doing in announcing the Green Paper? All that the Post Office really needed was access to a bit more commercial freedom, and access to funds without the external financing limit. A system of bonds that did not give any shareholders' rights—which was proposed before—could have provided that, but it was ruled out in the case of BT simply because the Treasury did not like it, not because it was not efficient.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the nature of the implication that flows from borrowing that apparently has the Government's guarantee behind it. I do not believe that there would be an argument for assuming that we can just allow the Post Office to raise bonds, and therefore produce money, in some way that would carry a Government guarantee with which it would then be able to compete with the private sector, which has no such privilege.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many old-fashioned Tories, of whom I am proud to be one, view the prospect of Royal Mail plc about as favourably as they would his old regiment at Buckingham palace being replaced by Group 4?

Mr. Heseltine: For once in his life, my hon. Friend has not understood the immensely close relationship between my old relationship and many of the employees of Group 4 Security.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that, for 334 years since 1660, the Royal Mail has been a public service, not only through the counters until quite recently, but through the people who called at everybody's house every day, and were a form of contact; that there is no justification for privatisation for commercial freedom, because, over the years, as he will know, the Post Office has developed, as with the giro, a completely new bank from within which was so successful that the Government sold it off; that the consequences of privatisation will be higher salaries for the management, which is why they want it, and poorer services and redundancies?
With great respect, after I heard the President give assurances about the pits 18 months ago, nothing that he says is believed, because he did not honour the assurances that he gave in 1992. Many people, and I am one of them, think that the sale of this asset to Tory businesses that funded the Conservatives' campaign will have a sniff of corruption about it from the very outset.

Mr. Heseltine: The great value of a Green Paper debate is that we shall have the opportunity of listening to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, which, in my view, have hardly changed through any of the 300 years to which he drew the House's attention.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it must be obvious to almost everybody in the country, perhaps with the exception of the socialists opposite, that if the Royal Mail is to remain competitive, and become even more so in the future, it must be given commercial freedom and freedom to invest; that if the Government fail to do that, they will be failing in their duty as the current owner of that business; and that the best way of achieving that is to privatise the Royal Mail and give it that freedom?
May I ask a question on local post offices? Would not it help them in their hour of need—as he has said, they are going through a difficult phase—if they were given priority access to the lottery terminals when the lottery comes into action, as that would help them a lot?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend realises that the issue of the allocation of the lottery contract has already been determined by the House, although the results have not yet been finalised. My hon. Friend made the point about setting the Post Office into a world in which it can expand and create a more competitive system. That is precisely why we have been conducting the review. I will certainly listen carefully to what he has to say.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We on this Bench strongly favour the status quo for sub-post offices, and I welcome the assurances given by the President on them. We will study the Green Paper very carefully. When we have done so, we will make our views known. If we require any—may I use the word?—"clarification", perhaps we could seek a meeting with the President.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is most courteous and of course he can be assured that, although I will not indulge in clarification, any other form of consultation is readily available to him and his hon. Friends.

Sir Giles Shaw: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on proceeding with this idea but on doing so through a Green Paper, a lesson from which many of his colleagues might learn in the complicated legislation that has recently been passed? Will he give an assurance that Post Office Counters and small sub-post offices will not have to wait for the results of the Green Paper to be reassured about pension transmission and other activities, which they sorely need at the present time?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is most kind. We realise that there is considerable pressure on us to move the decision-making process forward and there was, of course, a temptation just to come up with a scheme, as sometimes happens in government, and move on from there. However, after wide consultation, we took the view that some issues were perhaps separate from the strict economic imperatives and called for a rather more timely and cautious way of proceeding.

Ms Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State assure me that there will be a clear option in the Green Paper, which will satisfy 90 per cent. of the public and everyone—including management—who works for the Post Office, for the Post Office to remain as one integral unit and have more commercial freedom? Will that be a simple option in the Green Paper?

Mr. Heseltine: The Green Paper will try to cover the horizon of options, as the hon. Lady requires. However, it is fair to say that if we were going to consider something along the lines of what she suggests, the opportunities for the Post Office would be so constrained as to make the exercise hardly worth while.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement about Counters will be a great relief to every sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress because it will resurrect the possibility of their staying in business, which is essential for country districts?
Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the Green Paper points out the ways in which the interests of the tens of thousands of ordinary postmen who work in country areas will be protected, because they are also a great part of the country's structure and have a considerable role to play beyond that provided by the Post Office, as they deliver milk and do the various other little things that keep country districts operating smoothly?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, especially for his remarks about Counters, which are merited by my statement today. I think that postmen and postwomen will take into account the fact that the service that they are delivering—a universal service at a universal tariff—will be enshrined by statute in the new arrangements. Those men and women will, therefore, be needed to carry out tomorrow the work that they are carrying out today; but we shall put before them another option: instead of doing so just as paid employees of the Post Office, they might do so as paid employees of the Post Office but owning parts of the business for which they work.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that most Opposition Members hope that the result of this Green

Paper exercise is the same as that of the first that he carried out on the poll tax, which effectively rubbished it completely?
Bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's well-deserved reputation for bringing modern management to government in the past decade or more, does he accept that the big defect of his statement is that he has been unable to provide a date for publication of the Green Paper? He said that it could be in a few weeks, but we should like to know whether it will before the House rises for the summer recess. More important, he has been unable ' to establish a reasonable period for the consultation process —five or six weeks would be wholly inadequate. Does he accept that regional meetings will be required so that the general public feel that they have been genuinely consulted?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand that consultation periods are never long enough, but I have been through this process often enough to know that the views that we have heard expressed today will not change whether the consultation process takes a day, a week or a year. It is important to balance the interests of reaching a decision with a reasonable consultation period.

Mr. Rooker: How long?

Mr. Heseltine: To be straight with the hon. Gentleman, in the normal course of events, I should have wished to come to the House with specific answers to the sort of questions that he is putting to me. However, faced with the fact—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the whole of the Cabinet.

Mr. Heseltine: No, not the Cabinet at all in that context. The fact is that somebody, in the growing convention of the day, leaked the information to the newspapers. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has few expectations about the system in which he works. I believe that it would be much better to do these things in an orderly way without leaks. Nevertheless, given that there had been a leak, it seemed to me to be courteous to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity—if for no other reason than to stop the mischief making of people such the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).

Mr. John Butterfill: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for the attention that he has given to the views expressed by the Select Committee. What he has said today is very welcome, in particular his recognition that the world is moving forward very rapidly and that the development of new technology—electronic mail, faxes and everything else—means that the Post Office will have to make considerable capital investments in order to compete in the future.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that capital can be raised only through the private sector and that it would be quite unreasonable to expect commercial freedom to allow the Post Office to raise that capital through the Treasury? It would be unreasonable for its competitors and a complete fudge. Will he resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) which amount to nothing less than cooking the books?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes some very important points. Every attempt that the Government have made to enhance the opportunities for British industry by


turning nationalised industries into trading companies has been resisted by the Opposition parties. They have been wrong on every single occasion.
The fact is that we have to wrestle with the difficulties and discuss them on a wider basis than the forum today allows. The idea that businesses can simply operate in the public sector pretending that they are private sector businesses is not realistic.

Mr. Peter Hain: Surely the President is aware that his favoured privatisation option will have a devastating impact on areas such as Wales because it will encourage the cherry picking of profitable traffic and the social dumping of remote areas.
The separation of the Post Office Counters business as a rump service in the public sector could be very dangerous for remote, rural sub-post offices which have been effectively subsidised by the Post Office and are currently institutionally supported by it. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have not."] Yes, they have from time to time. Will the President of the Board of Trade give a specific guarantee that all existing second deliveries in urban areas will be maintained and that existing collection and delivery arrangements in rural areas will be maintained so that we do not go down the New Zealand route? Is he maintaining the £1 limit on the letter monopoly?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has asked the sorts of questions which made it so necessary to make a statement to the House today. Although I have made it absolutely clear that his fears are utterly groundless, he still got up and asked his questions as though they involved new points that no one had heard about.
All over Wales today, post offices are subjected to increasing competition, whether in the form of fax machines, bike boys or international companies delivering the more expensive products. The fact is that the Post Office is now subject to that competition. The issue that we face is the extent to which we can free it to enable it to fight back, not only in this country but internationally where many competitors are based.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposals concerning sub-post offices are particularly welcome in view of the enormously important role that they play in the community? It is absolutely absurd that they should have to haggle with the Treasury for months before they are allowed to sell even a fishing licence.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the all-party Select Committee on Trade and Industry—which included a Liberal-Democrat Member—noted, without objection or criticism, that one solution was privatisation and another was part-privatisation? Committee members raised no objection to that suggestion. That statesmanlike and sensible attitude contrasts remarkably with the ideological nonsense that we have heard from both Opposition parties today.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, who sat through the hearings of the Select Committee, makes a point that the House should take into account. When, in the Select Committee's long investigation, the arguments were

paraded clearly, rationally and calmly, the Committee formed very clear and unanimous views across all parties that progress had to be made.
I very much welcome what my hon. Friend said. However, I make one small qualification. I am delighted that Counters are able to sell fishing licences, but it would be wrong to suggest that it was Counters which had to spend many months haggling with the Treasury.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that the Royal Mail is the oldest and most successful postal service not just in Europe, but throughout the world? Does he agree that the 51 per cent. privatisation proposal will inevitably mean a reduction in service and an increase in unemployment?
With regard to the question about the Queen's head on stamps, if El Presidente is not calling "off with her head" at this stage, will only 49 per cent. of her head be left and will the next stage of his crazy privatisation programme involve selling off 51 per cent. of the Crown jewels?

Mr. Heseltine: What I find absolutely depressing about that sort of remark is that the hon. Gentleman stands up and says what an excellent organisation the Post Office is and then assumes that if it is given the freedom to expand it will get worse. I take exactly the opposite view. I think that if it is given the freedom to expand it will do an even better job than it is doing now.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It has been a long, careful road since we embarked on this process nearly two years ago. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will have a decision in time for the House to consider privatisation legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
Clearly, the Government have, rightly, made up their minds that the status quo proposal is a non-starter, as is commercial freedom in the public sector, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend. In short, I congratulate him and his right hon. Friends on having the courage at last to give the Post Office the freedom to invest in the private sector and on having the wisdom to reassure the public that a uniform tariff will be retained.

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise, as do all my colleagues, that we must balance proper consultation with the need for a decision. My hon. Friend may take some satisfaction from the fact that the statement has been made this afternoon.

Mr. Alex Salmond: At a time when the Scottish Office is being forced away from the privatisation of water and steered away from the privatisation of forestry, can the President of the Board of Trade explain why he wanted to swing ahead and sell off bits of the Royal Mail before his proposal was overturned by his Cabinet colleagues?
Is not the real explanation for today's bungled statement that the President wanted to put on a macho display of political virility for the electorate and the Tory Back Benchers? In view of his climb-down, will he in future take the advice of another blond, Zsa Zsa Gabor, who said that, in her extensive experience, "Macho men ain't mucho"?

Mr. Heseltine: That was a rather pathetic intervention when we first heard it from other Opposition Members, and it got no better when repeated by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I am a Conservative Member who is deeply unhappy about the fragmentation and privatisation of the Post Office—which could be a privatisation too far—I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the fact that he has decided to publish a Green Paper.
Will my right hon. Friend give me two assurances in that regard? First, will he assure me that he will listen to the comments that are made about the Green Paper and that, if those comments are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposals, he will drop them? Secondly, will he give me a cast-iron assurance this afternoon that the 49 per cent. that he intends the Government to hold under one of his proposals will be held by the Government ad infinitum?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is, as he says, a Conservative, and so am I. One of the responsibilities of being a Conservative and being in government—a responsibility not shared by the parties opposite—is that every so often one has to take decisions. Sometimes they are lonely, but they can often be right. It is important to show a degree of leadership when one can see the way that the world is going, perhaps even in advance of public opinion and understanding.
It is important to have regard to the overall health of the industry and the national interests that are deeply ingrained in the future potential of the industry. We will listen very carefully to the consultation that will take place. We will certainly look at what commitments may be necessary and for how long in respect of whatever level of Government shareholding there may be.
My hon. Friend generously said that he welcomed the Green Paper and the consultation process. He will know that, throughout the process, we have listened to his views, as well as those of many of my colleagues. That is one of the reasons why today we have provided what is not essentially an economic answer, but a wide political, social and economic answer.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Lord—I was going to call the right hon. Gentleman the "Lord President"; we shall soon be putting his head on the stamps. Will the President of the Board of Trade comment on the fact that we have a Green Paper rather than a White Paper only because of the Euro-elections, and that all the safeguards that we have been given on sub-post offices and all the rest will fade away after 9 June?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is diametrically wrong. I had not intended to publish any sort of paper at this stage, because, as the House will see, there are questions that I am not yet in a position to answer. I am making the statement as a response to a leak, which I regard as a discourtesy to the House, and which I am trying to put right.

Mr. Barry Porter: As my right hon. Friend has been handed a Macclesfield black spot, may I offer him a Wirral green spot, and congratulate him on his proposal? As a member of the Select Committee who has listened to all the arguments, I consider my right hon. Friend's idea a most sensible way of approaching the matter. We have reached no decisions, except that we cannot leave things as they are. All that I can do now is to offer my congratulations to the President, and I trust that

Macclesfield will go back to where it wants to go, sit in its own little village and think, perhaps, that this might be the best way in which to proceed.

Mr. Heseltine: I would not wish to intrude in any way in what sounds like something of an internecine war between my two parliamentary colleagues, so I simply welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said. However, I regard what he described as a Macclesfield black spot as one of the most encouraging green spots that I have ever heard delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. Nigel Spearing: As the President praised the Royal Mail in his statement, and implied that we could not keep the status quo simply because of the inevitable rising tide of competition, can he tell us why the House itself should not, through some legislative form, ensure that the magnificent letter service remains broadly as it is today?

Mr. Heseltine: Because the people charged with the responsibility of managing the service do not believe that that can happen, and because an all-party Select Committee, with a Chairman drawn from the hon. Gentleman's party, has advised the Government and the House that the status quo is not an option.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee first floated the idea of the BP solution—a part-privatisation—because the Committee could not see how any Treasury under any Government could provide the huge sums of investment necessary not only for the Post Office to compete abroad, but to stop the deterioration of services here at home?
That is why the sort of solution that my right hon. Friend suggests, which would enable the Post Office to raise funds outside the public sector borrowing requirement—no Treasury would ever agree to that—seems to fit the bill.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government stake would be no more than 49 per cent., and that the workers' stake in the operation would be at least, say, 10 per cent?

Mr. Heseltine: I have not given a figure for the Government stake today, although percentage figures can be considered in the Green Paper. Certainly one option that the House will want to have in mind, which I have mentioned before, is for the Government to have a large minority stake—suppose it were 49 per cent. The work people and the sub-postmasters might have a significant stake in addition to that. That is not quite the BP solution —I recognise that at once—but it is a variant of that solution, and I believe that it would give much reassurance to a wide body of opinion outside as well as inside the House. The Government will parade that and other options.

Ms Estelle Morris: If the President is concerned about the Post Office's lack of freedom to compete, does he agree that that calls for immediate action, not for further delay? He said that making the Post Office competitive in the public sector would cost the nation money, but does not he accept that privatisation of the Post Office would also lead to a loss to the nation's economy—for example, of the contribution of


£750 million that has been made over the past 10 years? That has been the steady contribution of the Post Office to the economic health of the nation.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady takes a narrow view of the way in which one has to judge such matters. Nobody suggests moving the Post Office abroad. The issue is where the ownership lies, and to what disciplines it is to be subjected. The profit would be distributed within this country one way or another. The question is whether it should continue to go directly to the Treasury by way of a dividend, which means that the Post Office is denied the opportunity to invest in itself.
One of the Post Office's major complaints is that it is not allowed to keep back the amount of retained profit that it would control in the private sector, because the Treasury earns a larger receipt than would be paid in the private sector. If the House says that therefore we should not take so much from the Post Office, it is really saying that that would have an effect on the public sector borrowing requirement and the Government's finances. The money cannot go both ways.
There are issues that we have to face. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to take decisions quickly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You asked me to leave with you overnight a written parliamentary reply informing me yesterday that on 20 April 1994 the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People authorised his officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to draft the 80 amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill tabled by five hon. Members. I also gave you other and related papers, and I know that you have been considering them in the context of a ruling you gave in the House last week. Is there anything you can now tell me about the outcome of your consideration?

Madam Speaker: I am aware, of course, of the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and I remind him and the House that I have no direct responsibility for ministerial answers. The answer that he mentioned appears to give a date relevant to a sequence of events described in the letter from the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott)—the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 9 May. It does not open up any new area for examination by me regarding an incident which I told the House on 11 May was closed so far as I was concerned. Hon. Members must find other ways of pursuing the matter that do not involve the Chair.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The statement to which the privilege complaint referred was that by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 6 May that he had:
No part whatever in the drafting of any of the amendments"—
to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—

and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department had been involved in the drafting"—[Official Report, 6 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 991.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's intensity of feeling on the issue, but I have now dealt daily—indeed, several times a day—with it. Of course I must deal with points of order made to the Chair, but what are now being raised are matters of debate, for which I have no responsibility. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for the Chair, perhaps he will come to it and I shall try to deal with it.

Mr. Berry: Is it not in order for you to review your ruling, Madam Speaker, because the implication of the written answer received last night is that we are being asked to believe that the Minister forgot an instruction that he had given a mere 16 days—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Berry: A mere 16 days before—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman appears to be challenging what I have said in the House on a number of occasions. I have just said that what has happened does not open up any new area for examination by me. I cannot make it clearer than that. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging my statement? If he is, perhaps he is not aware of our procedures. I want to deal with him as gently as I can, but if he is challenging my statement he must put a substantive motion on the Order Paper so that it can be debated. I cannot speak any more clearly. We have a very precise language. I said that what has happened does not open up any new area of examination for me. I cannot take the matter further than that.

Mr. Berry: I am not challenging your statement, Madam Speaker, and I am most grateful for your tolerance towards me. I was asking whether, given the information that we now have, it is in order that we are being asked to believe that the Minister forgot an instruction that he gave only 16 days beforehand. Would it be in order for you to review your—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason for me to review my ruling. I saw last night the answer that was given, and I am giving the hon. Gentleman my ruling. I am very sympathetic to hon. Members who entered the House at the general election and are keen and anxious to get their Bills through. However, I have to carry out the procedures and Standing Orders given to me by the House. The hon. Gentleman understands that.

Mr. Berry: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: I have enormous sympathy with the work that the hon. Gentleman has put in, but I cannot bend the rules and procedures of the House to meet the demands of one Member, or even of a handful of Members.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It does not relate to the same matter, of course, does it?

Mr. Austin-Walker: It is a completely separate point of order. I wish to raise it in the presence of the Lord President of the Council.

Madam Speaker: Points of order are not for any other Member of the House; only for me.

Mr. Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you any responsibility for the procedure for the guidance of Ministers? In the light of the new information given in the written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), is not there a case for the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement?

Madam Speaker: I have nothing to do with guidance for Ministers. I have enough responsibility in the House without guiding Ministers. I have not had any information from any Minister, certainly not from No. 10, that the Prime Minister is seeking to make a statement. However, motion No. 1 very much concerns me.

SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence tomorrow, Friday 20th May, to attend the funeral of the Right honourable John Smith, formerly Member for Monklands, East.—[Mr. Newton.]

Coal Industry

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
The House will be aware that British Coal has on the table with the unions a package which includes a lump sum payment of £6,000, the contractualisation of British Coal's basic generous redundancy terms, existing pay rates and the introduction of flexible working arrangements. That is a generous offer to British Coal employees which helps to provide some certainty for the future. While the great bulk of redundancy payments are, of course, financed by restructuring grants, that package is a matter for British Coal and the unions.
The draft order laid before the House is the eighth annual order under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987 and has three main purposes. First, it specifies the kinds of expenditure in the present financial year for which grant may be paid. These are set out in the schedule to the order and are unchanged from those specified last year. Secondly, the order sets the maximum percentage of relevant expenditure which may be met by grant. The Government have decided that the maximum rate for 1994–95 should remain at 90 per cent. Thirdly, the order increases the cumulative ceiling for payments of restructuring grant from £2,500 million to £3,000 million, as permitted under the Coal Industry Act 1992.
I will explain the third purpose in more detail. The 1987 Act, as amended by the Coal Industry Act 1992, limits the cumulative provision for restructuring grant to £2,500 million, increasable by order up to £3,000 million. At the end of 1992–93, cumulative restructuring grant paid to British Coal was some £1,900 million. During 1993–94, British Coal made claims for restructuring grant amounting to more than £740 million. If all those claims had been met, the cumulative total paid since 1987 would have been £2,640 million. Due to the current ceiling of £2,500 million, grant claims of £140 million for 1993–94 remain unpaid, the expenditures involved having been funded temporarily by voted loans to the corporation. Further claims for some £110 to 120 million are expected in relation to 1993–94 costs. Those expenditures, already incurred in 1993–94, would imply the need for an increase in the cumulative ceiling to over £2,750 million.
As hon. Members will be aware, the provision for restructuring grant in this year's supply estimates is £425 million. A major part of that provision will be taken up by the £250 million or more of expenditure incurred by British Coal last year, for which grant will be paid this year if the House approves the current order. It is too early to say what further eligible expenditure may be incurred in the current financial year, although we have already received a claim for £6 million in respect of job losses in April.
I hope that that explanation will assist the House and I look forward to listening to the debate. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: As you would imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to divide the House on the order, although it would be wrong to assume that the Opposition necessarily give it an unalloyed welcome.
As ever these days, we speak about the coal industry against the background of a further decline in numbers to about 14 pits and 10,000 men working in them. There are also prospects of further reductions, although we do not know how many or what form they will take. If there have to be further redundancies between now and any privatisation date, we would hope that those redundancies would be treated in a similar manner to those that have already occurred. However, we know that the redundancy proposals have been withdrawn in their present form.
One of the main concerns—to which the Minister referred—is the package currently being offered to miners. One of the hallmarks of industrial relations since the miners' strike has been the understandable reluctance of the National Union of Mineworkers to participate in talks with British Coal. For miners who are members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, discussions have continued and a number of settlements have been reached, although in many instances those who did not participate felt that they could have done far better had they been given a proper opportunity.
The package to which the Minister alluded does not even satisfy the Union of Democratic Mineworkers: in a ballot of its members, the agreement was rejected by some 93 per cent. of those who participated in the negotiations. That ballot was significant because it showed that not even members of the UDM were prepared to accept that package which was designed, if I may use the euphemism, "to promote flexible working". What is on offer is a sum of £6,000, subject to taxation, if the men are prepared to sign undertakings that they will change the nature of the working arrangements, which will mean abandonment of agreed working hours and the possibility of having to work up to 13 hours a day as a consequence of accepting the agreement.
There are grave misgivings on the part of a number of those involved in the mining industry. I need go no further than the opinion of the general secretary of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, Peter McNestry, who has repeatedly made the point about the inherent dangers of additional working hours, not just in terms of the possibility of exhaustion causing mistakes and lack of care, but because of the very fast cutting equipment at the coal face and the greater exposure to industrial dust and other pollutants down there. Exposure is increased and the danger to men increases as a consequence. However, we are led to believe that if the £6,000 is accepted all those other considerations will be set aside.
Opposition Members feel that such a move is designed more to make the coal industry attractive to potential purchasers than to make it safe and healthy for the men currently employed in it. We therefore have grave misgivings about the proposal and we understand only too well why the men who have had the opportunity to vote on it have rejected it and why others are in no way sympathetic to it.
It is perhaps a sign of the despair of British Coal in such matters that a recent edition of Coal News, the official

organ of British Coal, said that the colliery managers union had come out in favour of the proposal. The significant factor is that the colliery managers are not subject to any constraints on the number of hours that they work anyway, so it is almost academic to ask them. Anybody who is offered £6,000, even if he has to pay tax on it, will not turn it down if it involves no sacrifice on his part. However, the numbers concerned and the people concerned are not really relevant to discussion of the proposal today.
We are led to believe that there are some assurances in the package in relation to redundancy payments. However, as I understand it from legal advice received by some of the unions, there are grave misgivings about whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 provisions extend beyond 12 weeks after a change of ownership of an undertaking. We are conscious that within the financial provisions of the order there is money available to finance part of the package, but we find the package to be wanting in a number of respects and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will return to the matter in due course.
It is worth putting on record that an agreement on pensions has been reached between the trustees and the Government, and that many of the problems that we debated during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill appear to have been resolved. What is at stake here is the funding of the interim arrangements for men who have had to leave the industry and whose pension payments are not yet covered by the pension fund proper. We express our relief that an agreement has been reached which is to the satisfaction of the pensioners, the prospective pensioners and the trustees of the pension scheme.
Perhaps the Minister, who was helpful in his introduction, will spell out exactly how much of the sums involved will be accounted for this year. Perhaps he will tell us a little more about how much money will be made available to British Coal Enterprise. Although many of us have been somewhat less than fulsome in our praise for British Coal Enterprise, we recognise that when the coalfield communities are in a state of economic depression, any assistance available to communities and to individuals for retraining or for help in starting their own businesses will be welcomed.
We want to know two things: how much will the sums be, and will there be any new money? We know that a fair amount of the funding of British Coal Enterprise is now accounted for by the repayment of loans and the recycling of moneys. How much will the retraining budget be? If any area of British Coal Enterprise activities needs to be looked at, it is retraining. We are very conscious that some of the areas in which colliery closures have taken place are now denuded of virtually any economic activity. The important and valuable skills that were won at the coal face and underground are, sadly, not marketable in the changed environment. We hope that there will be sufficient funds to support retraining in those areas and we should like to know the sums involved.
We are concerned that there is great uncertainty about the future of British Coal Enterprise. The Minister was unable to give us assurances about that when we debated the Coal Industry Bill in Committee. I repeatedly have to tell councillors in my area, where there are a number of unemployed mineworkers, that British Coal Enterprise is still in business. During the passage of the Coal Industry Bill, there was a feeling that British Coal Enterprise would be finished shortly afterwards. We recognise that it may


not have a life in perpetuity, but we are very conscious of the need for information about how long it will continue, what its future funding is likely to be and the possibility of new money. There is considerable anxiety about those matters and a great need for more resources to be made available.
This is one of the last—perhaps the last—coal restructuring orders if privatisation goes through. In some respects, it is a reflection on the sad state of the industry that we have to talk in terms of the significance of measures to try to mop up unemployment and of softening up the labour force before privatisation with the removal of the struts that have supported the coal industry and industrial relations within it for so long.
It is a matter of considerable regret that British Coal is trying, apparently with Government support, to buy back from the men many of the important concessions that have been won over the years. Those concessions cannot be measured against the price that the board and the Government seem to place on them. It is not wise to encourage men to work longer hours underground; that is a profoundly dangerous road to take. In other countries, it has resulted in a dramatic increase in industrial injuries. When those longer hours are combined with the change in the health and safety arrangements, and the change that is likely as a consequence of the ending of deputies and the ending of regular independent assessment of the safety provisions within colleries, one becomes extremely suspicious and worried about the future of the industry. Although it employs only 10,000 people, for many communities it is still one of the few sources of employment of a standard that we want to defend, not necessarily to the death, but certainly to the hilt.
We do not intend to vote against the order, although we have a number of misgivings about its contents, and we regret that it will be one of the last of its kind. We hope that the points that my hon. Friends will make, along with mine, will go some way towards persuading British Coal and the Government to think again about a package that we consider to be dangerous and unhelpful to the industry and more likely to poison the well in advance of privatisation. We have a number of misgivings about privatisation. We do not believe that it is necessary and we do not wish it well, but we do not want the hands of the workers to be tied in any way before privatisation. The order and the package to which the Minister has alluded are likely to result in a deterioration in conditions and in the protection that the workers currently enjoy. That deterioration is regrettable and objectionable; as other financial provisions are contained in the order, however, we shall not oppose it. Nevertheless, I make it clear to the Minister that we do not offer our approval for what he is offering today.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The order is called the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order, but many of us from coalfield communities in Nottinghamshire and across the country feel that the coal industry has had enough restructuring recently. I remind the Minister that in Nottinghamshire there were 40,000 miners in 1980; there are fewer than 4,000 now.
The morale in the coal industry and in the coalfield communities has never been lower, and the order reaffirms the problems. The Minister told the House that the package

on the table for discussion with the unions came specifically from British Coal. I wish to challenge him on two points.
First, the package is no longer on the table with the unions. British Coal is blackmailing individual miners to sign by this time tomorrow or lose any financial rights. Those are the tactics which are going on, and there are letters in Nottinghamshire pits today telling miners in clear terms that if they do not sign on the dotted line they will lose tremendous amounts of money. Miners have been told that this is a once and final offer, and that British Coal is not in a position to make a better offer because the real offer is coming from the Government.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us today whether he has had discussions about the redundancy package, and whether he received advice from British Coal. Perhaps he will tell us what specific advice he had from British Coal, because there is a strong view within the coal industry that the managers of British Coal want to do better for the work force than the offer that is on the table, but they have been denied the resources by the Government. Yet the order provides money to the Government to give to British Coal. Clearly, if there was a will, there would be a way to make more money available for miners.
The package on offer to miners is bad in many, many ways. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, it demands longer hours. The package demands 12 to 13-hour shifts, which cannot be right in a modern society with high unemployment and, in particular, immense unemployment among ex-miners. We ought to be reducing the hours worked underground. It is also unfair in the sense that miners have to give up their two years' pay claim. The £6,000 lump sum will be taxed and they will take home about £3,400. That is perhaps the equivalent of the two years' pay claim, but it is not the generous settlement to which the Minister referred today.
We are told that the package will last beyond privatisation. Perhaps the Minister will be specific tonight and say what the situation will be for miners if a private company goes bankrupt. Will that offer still stand? Will miners still get the money? The answer seems to be no, but perhaps the Minister will tell us, because we need to know, and the men and their families need to know. What about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations? If the package is agreed, how long will the TUPE regulations and the force of law last beyond the privatisation of British Coal? Will not the new mine owners in fact be able to renegotiate the package quickly, perhaps within a year of the privatisation of the pits?
Those are the difficulties involved in the package. The real difficulty is that it has taken the guts out of the mining industry, and it has taken the morale of the men away. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that. In Nottinghamshire up to now, productivity in the pits has constantly gone up. However, the men feel that they are not getting a fair deal and are being treated like dogs and, because of that, productivity is now going down. Clearly, that will cast a blight on privatisation.
The package has been resoundingly thrown out by ordinary miners in Nottinghamshire. They say very strongly that they are not getting a fair deal. I will give the House the example of Stephen Tuck, who works at Bilsthorpe colliery. His father Bert worked there before him, and set up the National Union of Mineworkers at Bilsthorpe colliery. His sons have followed in the family tradition. Stephen Tuck does roof bolting at Bilsthorpe


colliery—something the Minister knows about. He works in a team with contractors and, in fact, is the supervisor of three contractors. He is a British Coal man, but the men he works with are contractors. They used to work for British Coal and received redundancy payments of £40,000, yet they are still working in the industry alongside Stephen Tuck. He says, quite rightly, that he wants to leave British Coal, and he has been asking for his redundancy for some time, but the corporation will not let him go. Yet the lads whom he is supervising have received £40,000.
There are all kinds of stories like that from people who want to set up their own businesses. Adrian Button wants to come out of the industry. He has set up on a part-time basis a small business which is becoming successful drilling and looking after the roadway in Bilsthorpe colliery. He wants to come out, but the pit manager at British Coal will not let him. It is not surprising that people are saying that they have been locked into a new kind of slavery.
The package currently on the table is a new, modern slavery, and it is keeping men in the industry who want to come out. It is unfair and inequitable because the miners' colleagues and comrades, who had a better chance just a few weeks ago, have had far better offers. The Minister really ought to think again, because the money contained in the order would allow other ways of dealing with the men. There has been a strong voice from Nottinghamshire, which I know that the Minister has heard, in the run-up to privatisation. In all decency, the Minister ought to treat all the men the same. The day before the industry becomes privatised, he ought to pay the men off under the old terms. There are currently 10,000 men in the industry. I do not know whether there will be 10,000 men in the industry at the point of privatisation, but I know that the average redundancy pay-out under the old scheme was £25,000. That would mean £25 million in total, so there is enough money in the order to meet the aspirations of people in the coalfields in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere.
The men and their families have had a tough time. Many of them have given their lives to British Coal, to their coalfield and to their community, and they are not getting a fair deal. I remind the Minister that promises were made, particularly to the miners in Nottinghamshire. There is a strong feeling that they have been betrayed, and that the Minister has turned his back on them and walked away. They want a new and fairer future. The Minister must think again about the redundancy package, give the men a fair chance and move towards bringing new industry, new employment and a new future to the coalfield communities.
That is why the questions that the Minister is being asked about the future of British Coal Enterprise are so important. Will the Minister tell the House today whether British Coal Enterprise will last, not just for a little time beyond the privatisation but into the future? The devastation in the coalfield communities means that we need measures to tackle problems which could last for five, 10 or 15 years. The industry has been there for a long time, and men have given their lives to it for a long time: now is the time for the Minister to play fair with them.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It gives me very little satisfaction that so many of my constituents should have to be the beneficiaries of the enhanced redundancy payments for which the order provides, but they are in that position because of the tragic closure of Ellington colliery. The closure came after those involved had been led to expect that, with a Government subsidy, they had a 15-month breathing space in which to prepare for privatisation.
The hope is still kept alive that the colliery will reopen following privatisation, and I expect the Minister to continue to mount every possible effort to see that that can be successfully carried through. I believe that the pit has a future, but tonight we must consider the position of those who are involved in the redundancy package. I must underline to the Minister that a number of people did not benefit from the enhanced redundancy package. When so much public money is involved, as there is in the order, it is incumbent on the Minister not to stand completely back from the way in which British Coal handles that public money.
I have had occasion to put to the Minister the position of some of those people who were put on to contract, in my view under a degree of duress, and who therefore became employees of contractors shortly before the closure of Ellington colliery. As a result, they did not get the enhanced redundancy package available to those employed at the colliery on the day of closure. The Minister wrote to me saying that the detailed arrangements were a matter for British Coal. However, when what appears to be a significant injustice involving public money has occurred, the Minister should take a closer interest than that shown in his letter.
Stories abound of people put under pressure to cease to be British Coal employees and to become contract employees. I want to quote a letter from someone who was affected in that way, but first I want to quote a letter from Mr. Neil Clarke, the chairman of British Coal. On 4 March he wrote to me saying:
I cannot accept that any employee at Ellington was pressured or coerced to accept redundancy where their jobs were identified as surplus to requirements. All such employees were counselled in the usual way and, in every case, were offered either alternative employment at the mine or the opportunity to accept redundancy on the terms available at the time.
That is not what happened. Mr. Clarke persists in describing something very different from what is happening in the real world. He went on to say:
Those accepting redundancy were certainly not 'transferred' to mining contracting companies by British Coal. I understand that a number applied to the companies concerned and were offered jobs following interviews.
That is not a fair description of the position when people who work for British Coal one day find themselves the next day doing the same job in the same location in the same pit as an employee of a contractor, in a number of cases very much against their will.
One factor in the position of those workers was their belief that their pit had the future to which I referred earlier as a result of the Alcan contract and the subsidy for that contract. Once the men knew that the contract had 12 months to run and would be supplied with Ellington coal, there was a reasonable expectation that there would not be an immediate closure of the colliery. Everyone knows that


when a closure happens extra redundancy payments are made. No one with the knowledge that a pit would close within a few weeks would voluntarily transfer to contract.
Many people thought that the pit had at least another 12 months' future. They feel that the Minister's statement at the time was not only misleading but damaging because it led them to take a decision different from that which they would have otherwise have taken. Of course, they would have had considerable difficulty taking any other decision because of the pressure that they were put under.
I want to quote from a letter sent to me on behalf of two men. It states:
After initially saying we would be able to remain in our own jobs with British Coal, management then changed their minds and said we were required to sign over to the new contractor. The next 9 weeks were a catalogue of threats, pressure and coercion by British Coal, from our supervisor through to senior management. We were told to accept the conditions or be sent down the pit with a shovel … Men from a nearby, recently closed colliery were to be offered our jobs if we didn't quickly accept terms (or so we were told!) An ex-shaftman who left the industry over five years ago was approached by management to come back to work for the contractor (as our replacements). Two underground joiners who are good friends of ours refused an offer to take over our positions"—
these were positions in a different trade.
We were told by our supervisor that the contractor had been told to fulfil his obligation immediately. This was later found to be untrue".
The letter mentions a number of other points, but then goes on to say:
We approached the personnel manager to let us know where we would be sent if we stayed with British Coal. 'This had not been fully explored', was his reply. We asked him to look into alternative jobs with British Coal for us and he agreed to do so. Two weeks later when we saw him again, he could not give us an alternative offer of work. However, he told us that if we didn't sign over, the contractors would be told to fulfil their contractual obligations immediately. We had no alternative at this stage, so very reluctantly, we signed over to contract . . To rub salt into our wounds, the announcement to close Ellington Colliery was made 2 weeks after we were forced out.
A significant number of men were forced on to contracts by threats and duress. They were told that there would not be a job for them or that no job could be specified. I sent some details of that to the Minister and I must ask him to consider whether that was a reasonable way for British Coal to behave. It was not. It is not a reasonable way to dispose of public money to operate a scheme in so partial a way. The partiality arises because, far from men having voluntarily accepted transfer, they were coerced into that shortly before a closure was announced. Had they not transferred, they would have been significantly better provided for by the redundancy package.
To add further insult to injury, many of those men have subsequently been made redundant by the contractors to whom they signed over. They now find that they are not eligible for unemployment insurance on their mortgage. People who took out mortgage insurance policies are now told that they are not eligible for payment because they changed their jobs. I know that that has been said to someone who worked in the same job in the same pit but was simply transferred by British Coal to contract employment. It is a further injustice that I ask the Minister to consider.
As has already been mentioned, there were those at Ellington, as there were at other pits, who wanted to take redundancy but could not do so because their position was in demand. They may have wanted to set up their own businesses, but could not get a date for redundancy. There

are many injustices. The redundancy payments are about the only thing that stand between the local economic conditions of having the pit open and the disaster of it being closed. For a short time there is still a good deal of money around in the community, going into the shops and so on, but once the redundancy money has gone the real deprivation starts.
That is why the reference to British Coal Enterprise is significant, although it plays only a small part in what needs to be done for those areas. Nevertheless, we want its role to be adequately fulfilled. The only recipe to deal with the concerns that I have expressed tonight is that particular injustices should be corrected—as, I understand, they have been at the Wearmouth colliery, for example. British Coal Enterprise should be given every encouragement to work in areas where there are closures.
Every effort should be made to secure the future of Ellington pit, even though it would have a reduced work force. Further steps should be taken by all the relevant Government agencies to bring work to the area. A very serious position now faces south-east Northumberland, as with other former coalfield areas. Once again, I draw that to the Minister's attention.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Reference has already been made to the fact that this may be the last coal restructuring debate. That may be so, but the Minister must accept that it certainly will not be the last coal debate because the problems that will remain after the privatisation measure goes through, if it does, will be so enormous that the House will have to return to the subject with the same frequency with which it has turned to the subject of coal over the past 15 years.
I see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), all of whom have taken part in or diligently attended coal debates throughout the years. We have heard and seen the Government change their position quite dramatically. For example, in the mid-1970s it was customary for some Conservative Back Benchers to take part in coal debates. They used to castigate the Labour Government if a colliery closed. In those days, they drew attention to colliery closures, yet we lost only about 1.5 per cent. of the pits.
In general, collieries were closed with the agreement and acceptance of the men who worked there. They were prepared to accept that a colliery should close when it was exhausted or if the men were working up to their waists or worse in water. If the circumstances in an individual pit were barbaric, the colliery closed. Now, we are not talking about men having to work up to their waists in water or about barbaric conditions. We are concerned about a system, which will govern our coal industry, which is in itself barbaric.
The Minister will probably say that the changes are an example of flexibility. Yet men have been compelled to accept a bribe to be enchained and to lose whatever capacity they had to decide for themselves the nature of their employment, whether they wished to work excessive hours, and whether they wished to question the erosion of the pattern and culture of safety which would be an inevitable consequence of the changes made by the Government.
The Minister has heard me make the point about safety before. He has refused to accept it throughout. The fact remains that the men responsible for safety underground believe that the changes that the Minister introduced are bound to erode the culture of safety, cause accidents and increase the proportion of men in the industry who are maimed or killed. The Minister has heard me say—I said it in his office as well as in the Chamber—that when, under the changes and the erosion of the safety culture, men are maimed and killed, he will have firmly on his conscience a substantial responsibility for those tragedies.
It is tragic that in the 1970s Conservative Members clamoured for the Labour Government to maintain the commitment to the Plan for Coal and investment in the industry. When we hear in coal debates about the astronomical sums that have been spent on the coal industry over the years, we have to understand that a substantial part of that expenditure was investment of historic importance. It meant that by the time we reached 1990, or the latter part of the 1980s, we had such a successful coal industry in Britain that it made other European coal industries look like incompetent failures. We had the highest rate of industrial success and increased productivity not merely in Britain or in the coal industry but in any industry in Britain or Europe in the past decade.
The consequence of that success has been record achievement, huge improvements in productivity and the provision for British industry of a significant base for industrial production and exports. The consequence has been the creation of a home market for engineering and all the other technological activities associated with successful deep mining. All that opportunity is being thrown away.
The taxpayers, or the politicians representing the taxpayers, were persuaded to approve the investment which secured the astonishing rates of improved productivity in the British mining industry. The Minister cannot deny that those rates of productivity were regarded as impossible at one time. The Minister nods his head, suggesting that he agrees with the point that I make. It is a pity that his superior, the President of the Board of Trade, still has not fully comprehended the scale of that achievement.
The fact remains that the thin-seam pits in the older part of our coalfields closed. There was investment in heavy duty equipment, which was put on to the coal face so that the coal could pour out on a scale and at a pace that could not have been imagined 20 years ago. Having achieved all that, we have now seen the industry virtually scrapped. Why? It has been scrapped because of the strange and foolish perversion of the electricity privatisation. The structure that was established made it inevitable that the coal industry would be disfigured. The outrageous nuclear payment to the French electricity generating industry has been maintained. British money pours across the channel to sustain highly subsidised French nuclear generation. That money could well have been used here in Britain.
The British industry has been cast aside while the German and Spanish industries have costs per tonne which are three times ours, but have Governments who are not so daft as to make the very short-sighted calculation that dominates the Minister's approach.
What is worse, as we have seen liberty in the mines eroded and the safety culture cast aside in the name of support for privatisation, we have seen damage to the employment prospects of many parts of our country. I have told the House before—it is a serious matter—that just a few weeks ago I met a group of 15-year-old boys from my area. They were decent, normal boys. We are talking not about boys with academic potential or boys who would be high-flyers, but about boys who would be ordinary, decent citizens. They see no prospect for them; they see no challenge; they see no hope.
What are we doing as a society to make 15-year-old young people see no prospect of economic viability or social success? It is inevitable that at least some of those boys will become crime statistics. The very nature and character of societies in the British coalfields have been disfigured and corroded in recent times. Bills to provide temporary dollops of money to assist the restructuring that should never have been necessary will not provide the Government with any political satisfaction.
I accept that if men are to change jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said, we ought to have a fair and equitable system. We do not have such a system. The Minister should understand that, while it is fair to pay men who have been forced into redundancy, it is also essential to sustain the communities. Even with the provision of city grant, which is of some assistance, the spending capacity of the Deanne valley area has been reduced. Therefore, it is vital that the Government not only accept that European aid must go into the coalfields but recognise that coalfield areas have substantial needs when they distribute grants to local authorities to reward councils such as Westminster and Wandsworth, which enjoy a far greater affluence than the areas in which pits are being closed.
The Government must also recognise that we shall have to have another coal debate soon, not necessarily about the financial restructuring, but to resolve the serious problems that, at least so far, have been ignored in the privatisation arrangements. Those problems are as yet unresolved. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the recent case in south Wales and the effect of the cessation of pumping at abandoned mines. The environmental consequences could be catastrophic.
Perhaps the Minister would also consider that the environmental consideration to which I have referred can be matched by our deep anxiety about the future of greenfield sites which are subject to the risk of opencast mining by private business, given the power of compulsory purchase by a Government who are supposed to be fundamentally opposed to such disfigurements and who seem predisposed to give planning permission where the local community would not wish it to be granted. The House will have to return to those issues and others.
Although I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan was right to advise us not to vote against the measure, I hope that when the debate is over the Minister will be under no illusion that he enjoys massive support for his policies. He has no support among Opposition Members for a policy which has destroyed jobs, made Britain likely to enter energy dependence at a very early stage and has brought a great deal of ruin, hopelessness and blight to areas which deserved a great deal better, not least in view of the massive and magnificent improvements in productivity, which are unmatched in other areas of British or European industry.

Mr. Michael Clapham: The order covers the British Coal financial year from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995. I note that, in paragraph 6, there is an increase from £2.5 billion to £3 billion. The items listed under headings 1, 2 and 5 in the schedule to the order are included in paragraph 5(2)(b), but I note that the item listed under heading 6 is not. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that is significant.
I raise that matter because, although British Coal Enterprise has not created many lasting jobs in my constituency, its endeavours have overall been helpful. The organisation has the potential to create jobs—and every little helps. The Coal Industry Bill, which is now in another place, does not have a great deal to say on the matter, and I hope that the omissions from paragraph 5(2)(b) are not an indication that the Government intend to wind up British Coal Enterprise or to cut it adrift from funding.
There is still a great deal to be done to assist miners who are made redundant, and their communities. The last colliery to close in Barnsley was Grimethorpe. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). Recently, research was carried out in the village of Grimethorpe by The Guardian. It was found that only 44 per cent. of men who had been made redundant had found other employment, and those miners who had managed to find employment were in low-paid jobs. Of course, that has dramatically affected the standard of living of miners and their families.
Through the provision of grants, the Government also make resources available under the new pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. That no-faults liability scheme was introduced into the coal industry in 1974. Since its introduction, it has been widened to cover asbestosis, and in some cases it includes payments for men suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I should add that payments for the latter disease are made only in special circumstances, and I shall refer to them in a moment.
My concern is that the order does not provide more resources for the scheme so that the Minister can include in it the general disease of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The pneumoconiosis scheme provides for the payment of a lump sum based on the assessed degree of disability and the age of the miner at the determined date of development. If the miner has attendant chronic bronchitis and emphysema and the medical authority contends that it has worsened as a result of pneumoconiosis, an additional award is made. That additional award will trigger off a further payment under the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme—and that is only right and proper.
The House will be aware that in September 1993 the Secretary of State for Social Security prescribed chronic bronchitis and emphysema as an industrial disease for coal miners. His decision to prescribe the disease was based on a report that he received in August 1992 from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which clearly accepted that there was a connection between the disease and the inhalation of coal dust. The indication is that coal miners are subjected to precisely the same risk of contracting chronic bronchitis and emphysema as they are of contracting pneumoconiosis. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that he is prepared, under the order, to make money available to the pneumoconiosis

scheme to cover chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is essential that that is done while the industry is still in the public sector, and before privatisation.
Another omission from the order is grants to clean up pollution from abandoned mine workings. I raise that issue in the light of the assurance given in the House of Lords by Lord Strathclyde as reported in the Official Report of 26 April at column 539. He said that the prevention of pollution from abandoned mine workings must be a top priority. That assurance is relevant to the order because Lord Morris suggested, at column 1064 of the Official Report of 3 May, that pumping operations that had ceased since October 1992 should, where there were signs of pollution, be resumed. Can the Minister tell the House whether the order makes provision to cover such circumstances?
Furthermore, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what action he intends to take to avert an environmental disaster building up at Worsborough reservoir in my constituency? That has been brought about by a decision taken by British Coal in October 1993 to cease water pumping at nearby abandoned mine workings, thereby substantially reducing the flow of water to the reservoir. That is creating a threat to the wildlife—the flora and fauna—around the river that runs towards the reservoir, as well as to the fish life in the reservoir.
As the Minister said, British Coal is seeking to buy out the terms and conditions of the remaining mineworkers for £6,000. That is a cynical ploy—and the Minister must be aware of it—to strip mineworkers of the protection that they have under current legislation, and to render them vulnerable to any terms and conditions that successor private owners may wish to impose. A much more honourable way of tackling the situation would have been to offer the remaining mineworkers a redundancy payment before the industry is privatised. Perhaps even at this late stage the Minister will consider doing that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) suggested. The miners have been given until tomorrow to make up their minds on the issue. I can see nothing whatever in the order to cover such payments.
It would be an enormous boost if the Minister could tell the House that he is prepared to make redundancy payments available to the remaining mineworkers before privatisation. The number of mineworkers in the industry who have not received redundancy payments cannot be more than between 7,000 and 8,000. If the Minister were prepared to make that announcement today, it would give an enormous boost to mineworkers and their families.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) spoke of miners claiming for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I asked various hon. Members who represent coalfield constituencies, but cannot find anyone who has won his case. I can see one or two of my hon. Friends nodding. There seems to have been a bit of Government trickery to prevent those miners from getting any payments.
One thing will emerge from this short debate. If it is not in the Minister's domain, I hope that he will impress on the various Government Departments and the Minister responsible—I do not know whether the matter cuts across


social security—that the examinations are not being carried out properly and that miners cannot get through the net.
British Coal Enterprise is another aspect of this package of recommendations that I must mention. We debated the matter during the Report stage of the Coal Industry Bill. We all know that British Coal Enterprise is one of the organisations with administrators roaming the coalfields purporting to provide jobs. They actually say "job opportunities" and that is how they get away with it—they are not real jobs.
It is high time that the Government understood what we are dealing with. People in pit villages in some coalfields did not fully appreciate what mass unemployment was all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) referred to that. He comes from a coalfield where people did not appreciate the scale of unemployment in the Scottish and Welsh coalfields and in parts of the Yorkshire coalfields for many years. In Nottinghamshire and the bordering parts of Derbyshire, the pits were closed suddenly, all at once. In a string of villages along that coalfield, including some in Bolsover, unemployment is more than 50 per cent.
Instead of giving the money to British Coal Enterprise, allowing whiz kids to roam about in flash cars, posh suits and Italian shoes and spend God knows how much on carpeting their floors, it is time that the money was used to get jobs back to those coalfield areas. I can think of no better way to do so than by telling local authorities to use that money to repair roads and schools and start building houses. They could get some of those miners back to work, instead of paying them on average £9,000 a year to keep idle. We are spending £30 billion a year so that mass unemployment can continue under this Government.
Some of the pit villages are like bombs waiting to explode. That is the truth. People talk about the social fabric breaking down in Britain and we have only to look at some of those pit villages where thousands of people have suddenly been chucked out of work to understand that.
That brings me to the question of the contract and the £6,000. It is true that the Union of Democratic Mineworkers has thrown the proposal out by a 93 per cent vote. Frankly, I was amazed that its members voted in those numbers. Why do the Government and British Coal not understand? If 93 per cent. vote in a ballot against something, one would think that those in power would wake up to the idea that they do not want it, but they have blindly ignored the ballot and gone ahead.
What should be done about contracts and about unemployment in the coalfields and everywhere else? We should be talking about a four-day week—not for Parliament, but for the people in general. There will be no better opportunity; we should start it now, while we have mass unemployment.
I was looking at the contract the other week. Based on the number of hours that miners work now—the few that are left—they would have to work 51.5 weeks in the year under that contract, which means that they would have two or three days holiday instead of the normal holiday weeks and bank holidays. For surface workers, it would be 55 weeks, based on the hours that they work now. Imagine telling that to Members of Parliament. They have already

gone. Members of Parliament and Ministers will finish next Wednesday or Thursday for another fortnight. They have met for about seven months in the past year, yet they are telling miners that under the contract they will have to work the equivalent of 51.5 weeks underground. What a scandal.
Frankly, a lot of the things in this order want chucking out. We all know that a sum of money has to be paid to miners through various schemes and pensions and we know that that is necessary, otherwise we would vote against the order because of the parts about British Coal Enterprise, the contract and the £6,000.
Another thing that is not included, but ought to have been because we said it long and often enough during the Report stage of the Coal Industry Bill, and doubtless in the Standing Committee as well, is the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—CISWO. Instead of giving the money to British Coal Enterprise, why was CISWO not given a sum equivalent to the amount that it fell short of when earlier measures were introduced?
For all those reasons we are faced with a list of measures that none of us can stomach, yet the order also provides for the sum of money to fund pensions and other necessary entitlements. Just before the privatisation of the coal industry we are engaged in a mopping up operation that will make the lives of people in pit communities even worse than they were before.
The real problem that the Government will have to face —a Labour Government—is how we can best get people back to work in those communities. The order will not provide that work.

Mr. Eggar: We have had a good and useful debate and I am sure that Opposition Members will not blame me for saying that at least some of the themes were familiar—some of the speeches were quite familiar too.

Mr. Skinner: The hon Gentleman's is familiar—he is always kicking people in the teeth.

Mr. Eggar: I am listening with my normal courtesy to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary contribution—if that is what it is. I much admire the anticipatory nature of his interventions.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was kind enough to draw our attention to the very satisfactory conclusion that has been reached with regard to the agreement with trustees on the pensions issue. I appreciated the constructive way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House handled the issue. Perhaps all of us could learn a lesson from the way in which the House can assist a genuine discussion and negotiation, rather than hinder it, and the debate is a good example.
Some hon. Members referred to the transfer package. As I made clear at the beginning of the debate, the order does not relate directly to the package because it and the lump sum—£6,000 was mentioned—are a matter for British Coal, subject to the overall authorisation of its external financing requirements.
British Coal's offer is generous and amounts to a cost of £100 million for the lump sum payments. I must inform the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that 10,000 times 25,000 is not 25 million, but 250 million. I understand that he enjoys the freedom of the Back Benches, but an error amounting to a multiple of 10 seems


slightly cavalier, even from an Opposition Back-Bencher. I am delighted to see a glint in the eye of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I shall resist the temptation to retaliate in kind.
I listened with care to the points made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is enjoying his conversation with the hon. Member for Bolsover. It is a matter for British Coal, but I shall make sure that the Hansard extract of his speech is brought to the attention of the chairman of British Coal because I am sure that the chairman would not want there to be any misunderstanding and will doubtless want to consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister spoke about the generosity of the package. Is it really as generous as he claims? It is £6,000, less tax which takes it down to a maximum of about £4,000. It involves two years without any pay rises and changes in working hours which will result in a reduction in the amount of money available from working overtime. Over four years the miners will be getting about £1,000 a year. Even making a generous estimate, £4,000 over two years is £48 a week. That is very little for changing their working hours, giving up the prospect of pay rises and losing overtime. It is not a generous offer by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Eggar: I assume that the hon. Member for Clackmannan has checked out his remarks with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who presumably will agree that £100 million of additional public expenditure is not adequate, thereby committing the Labour party in opposition to going way beyond that.
It is easy for Opposition Members to spend money like confetti and to make all kinds of commitments, but it is highly irresponsible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not make those observations if he were sitting on this side of the House.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister ought to understand that my hon. Friend is not asking for any more money. He is trying to tell the Minister that under a Labour Government there would not be such a package. We would not call upon miners to be blackmailed to the tune of less than £6,000 less tax and the rest of it in return for having to work longer hours and getting killed in the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), "I have just taken part in a debate in which I have saved you £100 million.". We would use the money to build some council houses or to provide work in another fashion. That is what he is saying.

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Member for Clackmannan is as grateful as the rest of the House for that contribution from the hon. Member for Bolsover. I always enjoy his efforts at riding to the rescue of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, but that one does not wash.
At the end of the day, what would those men be doing? They would be producing coal which would be stockpiled because there is no market for it. What would the hon. Gentleman do with the stockpiles? How would he finance them?

Mr. Skinner: Stop imports.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman really is tempting me to go way beyond the terms of the order, but he has not

done his research. He should know perfectly well that steam coal imports that are suitable for electric generation have fallen by 25 per cent. this year on last year and that the bulk of imports into Britain comprise coking coal and other specialist coals, the bulk of which are not and, sadly, cannot be produced in this country.
The hon. Gentleman should also know that one of the major aims of the private sector mining companies is to increase as far as possible anthracite production and other specialist coal production for niche markets. Sadly, he has not welcomed that, but he should do so.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) caused me a certain amount of consternation. Normally, such matters are dealt with by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), but the hon. Gentleman seems to have taken over that mantle. He did some analysis of the order and compared paragraph 5(2)(b) with paragraph 6. The order is drafted in that way because if BCE were to make redundancies among its own employees, unless that drafting were followed it could benefit from the grant twice over, once under head 1 and once under head 6.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the funding for BCE. With the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover, there is a general welcome for the work that BCE has done. The Government greatly value that work. We shall need to consider its longer-term future in the light of the overall employment position in the coalfields, and in the meantime the order would enable the funding of BCE to continue for a further year. In fact, we have received some suggestions from British Coal as to the future structure of BCE, which we are considering.

Mr. Clapham: I raised the possibility of chronic bronchitis and emphysema being included in the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. The Minister will be aware that chronic bronchitis and emphysema is now prescribed and clearly accepted to be dust-related. There is, therefore, no difference in the risk of pneumoconiosis and chronic bronchitis and emphysema and it is only right and proper that it should be included in the scheme so that a man suffering from the disease can be compensated. Is there provision under the grant to include chronic bronchitis and emphysema sufferers within the scheme?

Mr. Eggar: There is no such provision. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his determination to raise the issue on every possible occasion, as he is fully entitled to do, but we cannot cover that particular area, which is why I did not pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Hardy: It is a simple but serious question. The Minister appeared to be suggesting before he gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) that there was a reasonable amount of time and that the measure took us into 1995 —the next financial year. There are only 10 months of this year left and the wheels of Government sometimes grind extremely slowly. There is currently a lot of anxiety about BCE. Without wishing to twist his arm excessively, will he consider that that anxiety deserves to be recognised and if he can reach a conclusion before March 1995, he should do so? The House would be grateful for an early decision on the matter, which is of considerable significance to many people in the coalfield.

Mr. Skinner: Snap his arm off.

Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention and the way that he put it. He did not hear the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Bolsover suggesting that the hon. Gentleman should have snapped my arm off. Sometimes gentle persuasion is more effective. I listened carefully to what he said.
I understand both the valuable work that BCE does and the inevitable uncertainty that exists at the moment and I shall certainly be considering the advice that we have received from British Coal as soon as I reasonably can, but I would not want to be constrained to any timetable.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

Value Added Tax (Education)

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1188), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.
The order will replace the existing VAT exemption for supplies of education, training and research. It will leave existing VAT liabilities largely unchanged but I hope that, in line with the Government's commitment to deregulation, it will greatly improve the clarity and consistency of VAT treatment in that sector.
The key change is that profitability and the subject matter of individual courses will no longer be factors in determining eligibility to VAT exemption in most cases. Applying such criteria has been at the root of many of the disputes and inconsistencies in that area in cases that have gone before VAT tribunals.
The proposal is that exemptions will depend predominantly on the type of provider. If the supplier is an eligible body as defined in the order, its educational and training courses will be exempt from VAT. Schools, universities and further education colleges will continue to enjoy VAT exemption but the exemption has been extended in some respects.
First, sporting and recreational courses are no longer excluded. There was a contentious area of overlap between taxable recreational courses and exempt vocational training. One man or woman's recreational course is another's vocational course. A favourite example was that of flower arranging, which could be learnt for recreational purposes but also to become a florist.
Secondly, a specific VAT exemption has been introduced for examinations, assessments and similar activities. The new exemption covers a broad range of suppliers of such services and should facilitate the developing of national vocational qualifications.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I welcome what the Paymaster General says about the exemption of courses that fell on the borderline between education and recreation, such as Women's Institute courses. But exactly where does the order make it clear that courses of that nature will be exempt from liability to VAT?

Sir John Cope: The whole order makes that clear. The new group 6 category says that the provision by an eligible body of education or vocational training will be brought into the exemption. It goes on to define "eligible body", and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the education branch of the Women's Institute to which he refers—he has written to me about that—is such an eligible body and therefore falls within the terms of the exemption provided in the order.
Thirdly, the exemption for private tuition has been broadened and will ensure that very few private tutors will be caught in the VAT net. It was previously limited to one-to-one tuition. I doubt whether many individuals will be affected because there is a £45,000 turnover limit to VAT, which excluded most such people from the VAT net and will continue to do so. Lastly, local authority adult education classes that are currently taxable will be brought within the exemption.
Although the order is technical in nature, it is the result of a considerable consultation process. The House will know that the issues were discussed last year, with private notice questions in the House and correspondence, in the course of an internal review by Customs and Excise. That resulted in a consultation document being published last December, with press releases and so on. Although the issue was not front page material, its existence appeared in public print. In all, some 500 copies of the document were sent out, some to people whom we knew were interested and others to people who had seen the press release and were concerned about its ramifications, so had requested copies. Comments were invited by 28 February and those were carefully considered, as can be seen by the changes to the order between the December draft and the order before the House today.
When the order was tabled, it received a certain amount of support from those who had made representations during the consultation period. However, in the past week there has been a flurry of representations from people who teach English as a foreign language and had not seen the order before. Some of them are concerned about the proposals because the order extends exemption to organisations that are accredited under the British Council recognition scheme for English language schools. But that does not cover everybody who teaches English as a second language in a commercial environment. Those who are not covered by the British Council scheme will, under the order, continue to pay VAT and they have complained that it discriminates against them by exempting some of those whom they regard as competitors.
I have given no undertaking in response to those recent representations but have said that we shall consider them carefully and decide whether we should modify the arrangements in the order. It concerns a small part of the scheme of the order and I did not think that it would be right to hold up the whole order for that reason. It would, however, be right to give those who missed the earlier consultation process an opportunity to make proper representations. We may be able to achieve equitable operation leaving the order as it stands, with co-operation between the British Council and other representative organisations. The British Council has assured me that it will consider that. Alternatively, a brief amending order might be required. I am willing to consider representations from Members of the House in the course of this debate, which is part of the consultation process, and from others.
I believe that we should be justifiably proud of the English language. It is no longer ours alone but has become a world language, which is a great advantage to this nation and our daughter nations that also have English as their first language. I admit that I am not particularly good at foreign languages and take the view that, if foreigners could agree among themselves on one language, I would be prepared to make a greater effort to learn it. I have observed that when many foreigners from different countries wish to communicate with one another, they often use English. That is a great advantage to this country as well as to others who speak English as their first language. In those circumstances, I shall look favourably on the teaching of English as a foreign language. I am glad to be able to propose that favourable treatment be given to it in the order and will consider the further representations that may be made. At the same time, I recognise that, wherever we fix the boundaries, difficulties will arise.
The order makes the application of VAT much clearer in the whole field of education and training, and I am happy to commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew Smith: As the Paymaster General says, the order seeks to resolve the long-standing confusion, ambiguity and contradiction that have bedevilled the operation of the imposition of VAT on the education-recreation divide, which had become increasingly difficult to police.
The Labour party has campaigned long and hard for that to be sorted out. I welcome the fact that consultation took place. I shall point out later in my remarks where I feel that consultation was not wide enough. I also welcome the fact that the Government now appear to accept our argument that the benefits in terms of education and personal development, for example, of evening classes as a bridge to further education and training opportunities, are such that VAT should not be imposed on those courses. As the Paymaster General said, the progress of the campaign—with many millions of people throughout the country affected, directly or indirectly, and many making representations—has resulted in the welcome fact that VAT will not now be imposed. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has praised the campaign in that regard.
Lest the Paymaster General be tempted to relax under the weight of plaudits, I have some questions to ask and some important reservations to express. First, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm once again that the order does what we think it does. He referred to flower arranging. Other courses that often come up are those in cake decoration that do not lead to a qualification, as well as those in assertiveness, self-defence and other areas of adult education previously categorised as recreational. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that these will not be liable to VAT.
Secondly, I want to press the Paymaster General on whether the Government are convinced that it is consistent with good taxation principles to mix—as the order does —liability to tax, as defined by the nature of the supplying institution, with the nature of the supply. Is it not more generally the case that, with the exception of public bodies, the nature of the supply defines liability for VAT, for reasons of consistency but also in the interests of fair competition? As the Paymaster General has explained, the problem arises most acutely, in relation to the order, in the case of schools teaching English as a foreign language. In choosing to extend exemption to British Council-recognised schools, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, the Government are making provision for 250 accredited institutions. But these are a minority of the estimated 1,200 schools—a fact that understandably gives rise to enormous concern among those to whom the exemption is not extended.
It seems to me that there is something of an inconsistency between the Government's treatment of language schools for taxation purposes and their categorisation of those schools for educational purposes. Liability to VAT is being tied to a particular voluntary accreditation scheme in a sector where the Government have refused to acknowledge, for educational purposes, the need for any official distinction, in a regulatory framework, between schools. I have advocated a common registration


system. The British Council system, good though it is—as many in the industry will have pointed out to the Paymaster General—does not provide such comprehensive oversight of the industry.
I should like to know what the Government say to the Association of British Language Schools when it points out that the order confronts its members with unfair discrimination. The discrimination is referred to in the association's briefing:
We are the only accrediting body for all types of EFL service, whereas the British Council is more restrictive in the types of school or college it will inspect. Our inspections are yearly, not three yearly, employ a highly qualified inspectorate, and are part of a Trade Association which is rapidly gaining respect for realism as well as reasonable costs. British Council charges are far beyond the means of many schools….
If the order does go through as it is, the legislation will be seen as flawed from the outset and will have a divisive and distorting effect upon the market.
As I have said, there is a good argument for regulation. It can be argued that the contents of the order provide a form of regulation, the need for which many non-British Council schools acknowledge. But this is regulation on the hoof. It is discriminatory and has been brought in without adequate consultation with those whom it affects.
I understand that the English language division of the British Council did not know anything about the order until April, when the customs authorities asked it about the finer points of drafting. The Oxford Language Forum was not consulted, nor was the Cambridge Language Forum, the Association of British Language Schools or the language schools information service. The Paymaster General says that he is willing to listen to further representations and, if necessary, produce an amending order. Fairness and natural justice demand that this process be taken very seriously in the interests of providers.
The order will raise serious issues for the British Council itself. The council has said that it supports the principle and will try to help in its implementation—for example, by accommodating providers of distance learning and of one-to-one home tuition who are not currently eligible for accreditation. However, this will cost money and will take time, yet the order is due to come into effect within a couple of months.
I understand that the British Council currently inspects about one in four centres run by an organisation. That is the sample that it believes is necessary for the assessment of quality. Clearly, this will present problems in the case of distance learning or lots of individual tutors, where there will have to be individual rather than sample inspections. Thus, there will be resource implications for the British Council if the order is to be workable.
At the moment the financial year accreditation fees are £620 for members of the Association of Recognised English Language Services and £704 for non-ARELS schools. Reinspection costs another £800 to £900 every three years. These fees are supposed to cover the costs of assessment, monitoring and inspection, but in the past the British Council has ended up subsidising the process. It has been trying to phase out the subsidy, and future schemes will be expected to pay for themselves. This may well have implications for membership and accreditation fees. In the light of the extra responsibility being imposed by the Government, the British Council will have to review its own operations, and this will possibly have resource

implications. Clearly, it is very important that accreditation criteria be made as objective and defensible as possible. Bearing in mind the significant amounts of business that are at stake and the substantial sums of money that are involved, it is not fanciful to imagine that litigation will arise if a school which believes that it is entitled to accreditation and, therefore, to exemption from VAT is not accredited and has to damage its prospects by passing on the cost of the taxation.
In a number of respects the order indicates insufficient understanding and insufficient consultation with the industry. Currently, a school that operates throughout the year must have been established for two years before it can apply for British Council accreditation, and a seasonal school must have been established for three years. Am I right in thinking that, by implication, a newly established school will have to operate for two or three years, charging VAT, before receiving the accreditation that is the passport to exemption? That is an extraordinary proposal, given that it would hit new schools at precisely the time when they are trying to build up their custom. Surely it ought to be regarded as a massive and unfair barrier to entry to this sector of education services.
What is more, the differential liability to VAT may well be very damaging to many reputable schools, which will suddenly find themselves having to explain why they have to levy VAT when their competitors do not. We can all imagine the problems that will arise.
As I said earlier, I think that the timing of the order's implementation also betrays some ignorance of the education sector involved. I understand that the Customs explanatory leaflet is due to go out in June, and that the order is due to take effect in August—bang in the middle of the peak EFL season. Could not a more satisfactory arrangement be considered even at this late stage?
I think it likely that the cost to the Exchequer will exceed the Customs estimate of £10 million. Obviously that will become clear in due course, but we should take into account the hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pounds that are charged in fees for many courses.
The differing treatment of different sorts of institution that are similar in other respects gives rise to issues of hy bridity in the order. It is an affirmative instrument; if it went to the House of Lords, whether it was in fact hybrid would have to be considered. If it were found to be so, it would be subject to the petitioning procedure. I mention that in the light of a Customs and Excise news release issued on 28 April, which stated in its notes to editors:
The Treasury Order is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure and will be debated in both Houses of Parliament.
I understand that the Government now say that that was a mistake. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would explain the position: if it was a mistake, how did that mistake come about?
I have a further question to ask in connection with language schools. It relates to the position of universities. The exemption that Customs intends to extend to EFL seems—certainly in the case of universities—to be dictated by the need to realign United Kingdom interpretations of VAT law with the European Commission's interpretation of the sixth directive, which exempts education provided by a body governed by public law.
The Customs consultation paper to which the Paymaster General referred concedes as much in paragraph 3.2, which states:


However, if EFL is accepted as 'education' (and the European Commission has argued strongly that it is), then it must be exempt when provided by bodies entitled to mandatory relief under Article 13 A 1 (i), eg we should not exclude EFL from the exemption when provided by a UK university.
That raises the question of the previous supply of EFL tuition by universities. If such courses should not have been taxed and, in effect, were taxed incorrectly, are universities now entitled to ask for a refund of the VAT that was levied on them?
At the bottom of the first page, the brief on the order states:
There will be some changes at the margins from exemption to taxation and vice versa. Whether or not these changes are welcome will depend on the trading circumstances of individual providers.
Can the Paymaster General clarify the reference to
some changes at the margins"?
How many providers does he expect to be caught in that way, and what kind of providers will they be?
My next question bears some relation to that last point. It relates to the word "any" in note (1)(f)(ii) of the order, which provides that a body that does not fall within the other categories for exemption—as the Paymaster General said, schools, colleges and universities fall into those categories—will be exempt if it is non-profit-making and
applies any profits made from the supplies of a description within this Group to the continuance or improvement of such supplies.
Where that provision applies, does "any" mean any part of the profit, or all of it?
Let me give an example. What will be the position of a charity that sells some expertise—perhaps a course in public speaking—to the business sector, and then ploughs the profits back into a different area of its charitable work? Will all that supply still be exempt? Many charities will consider the question important.
I can give a converse example. What will be the position of a management college that provides tuition for corporate clients who can simply recover any VAT that they pay? Such a college might well prefer to charge VAT on its supply to reclaim the VAT on the input costs of such courses. Could it opt to do so under the order?
We welcome the clarification of the position of evening classes, adult education and so forth, because we campaigned hard for their exemption from VAT. Nevertheless—as I hope I have made clear—I think that the operation of the order will pose serious problems, especially in relation to English language schools. We all want the position of adult education classes to be sorted out as a matter of urgency, and there is no reason why that cannot be done on the basis of the order, which in that respect has our full support; but would it not have been better for the Paymaster General to withdraw the order this evening, and return it later minus the reference to EFL? He could have consulted before bringing back a revised order that reflected proper consultation and thorough consideration—which clearly has not gone into the part of the policy that we are now discussing.
We do not oppose the motion, but we shall pay close attention to the consultation with EFL providers and the conclusions—and, I hope, amendments—to which it gives rise.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am pleased to be able to speak in what I consider a very important debate.
I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) will not think me churlish when I say that many people feel that their campaigning was what led to the remission of VAT on adult education. Admittedly, the hon. Gentleman did not say that the campaigning of the Labour party alone had produced that result. The all-party Committee dealing with adult education, which I chair, has campaigned hard and I also pay tribute to the good work of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, its director Alan Tucket and others associated with it.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I did praise the campaign mounted by people up and down the country. I meant that to include the all-party group, whose contribution I acknowledge; I also mentioned NIACE.

Mr. Greenway: In that case, there is no difference between us. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Although I taught in schools for 23 years, for 12 of those years I also lectured in adult education, in which I have a great interest. I believe that I am almost the longest-serving member of the council of the Open university; I constantly examine distance learning on a university basis, and that includes adult education. The organisation is very interested in this important order and we are glad that it is to be introduced as early as 1 August.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East concentrated on the teaching of English as a foreign language, which is indeed an important subject. Every night, 1 billion people throughout the world sit down and study English as a foreign language. If there were more resources, that figure could rise to 5 billion. The demand is almost insatiable. Arising from that demand and flowing from that work is the enormous flow to this country of people who wish to learn English. They come to language schools, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and that brings money into the country. It brings employment. It is most valuable.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that some of those institutions are an unashamed and
disgraceful rip off to those who come to this country honestly and pay their money for a course in English language and English literature and do not get a fair deal. I feel sure that the exemption in the order will—perhaps fortuitously, but it will—lead to regulation of that situation, which is greatly needed.
There is no reason why language schools should not pay for the accreditation and inspections which have been referred to and which are urgently required. Some, of course, are quite marvellous, but some do not do an honourable and honest job.
There needs to be a thorough inspection system across the country. I have no doubt that it could be self financing; language schools charge enough in their fees. The hon. Gentleman might well agree, because he said that they might well have to resort to law if they thought that they were not getting a fair deal. If they thought about doing that, and some of them certainly would, it would not be just a few hundred pounds; legal action might mean hundreds of thousands of pounds. Some would be prepared to contemplate that, because their interest in holding their position is so strong. I ask my right hon. Friend to address himself to that important point.
I hope that we shall hear from my right hon. Friend tonight, or in the near future, that there will be a system to ensure that the schools that teach English as a foreign language do an honourable and thorough job, in which the progress of those who come to learn English as a foreign language can be properly measured, as all learning and teaching can and must be. That is what testing is for. Part of the national debate on education at present is about just that. If that means that, to measure progress, those schools have to make some initial assessment of those who come into them—I am not saying that they might refuse people on substandard qualifications—so be it. At least they would be seen to be doing an honest job.
Young people and people of mature age come here and are keen and set to learn English as a foreign language, and our culture. They do not get a fair deal, and go back to their country feeling that they have been ripped off. That area of our public and academic life discredits our country more than it should. It is shameful and must cease. That can be achieved through the order, and I hope and believe that it will be.
Vocational courses in adult education to enhance careers were mentioned by my right hon. Friend. He spoke of non-vocational qualifications. I warmly welcome the emphasis on the vocational and adult education that we currently have, but do not want to see adult education revert exclusively to the vocational. It is because it has had such high value over many years in non-vocational terms that we must encourage it. I believe that the relaxation of VAT will help that.
My right hon. Friend spoke of the value of flower arranging and pointed out that such courses can lead to people becoming florists, or working in that area. And so it can, and does. But many people want to learn to arrange flowers nicely for its own sake and for the sheer beauty of seeing beautifully arranged flowers. That is so valid.
Not so many years ago, in an educational establishment with which I was associated, a Lord Chief Justice of this land was following a course in basket making. He was never absent or late. I presume that he rushed from his court to be there. He loved it and needed it. A man or woman with a highly concentrated job gets so much out of such non-vocational courses, which are highly creative and highly valuable. If anything, there is a slight slippage in that area at present with all the pressure for vocational adult education.
I see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, who is doing such an excellent job, is here. He addressed the launch of the adult learners' week a few days ago, with great aplomb and to the thrill of all present, with his interest and knowledge of the area. I want to encourage him and pay tribute to him for what he is doing.
Similarly, physical education, including dance, is valuable to all. Is it covered by the measure? Let us be sure. Swimming is valuable to people of all ages. Perhaps they are people who just qualify in terms of age for adult education. Perhaps they are people of 90 who are going off to learn to swim. That is happening, as it should and must. Are they covered by the order? Does my right hon. Friend accept the enormous value in such courses being covered?
I speak for all those involved in adult education. I do not like to lose the term "night school", which is part of it.

People continue to talk of night school. Let us import that into the term "adult education". All those people will welcome the Government's proposals to clarify exemption from VAT on adult education, including voluntary bodies such as the Women's Institute, and the simplification of the situation in local education authorities where, as we have heard, the Treasury is said to be forgoing £10 million in revenue. It is money well spent. It will all come back, as I will show. It is particularly welcome at a time when many local authority adult services are under financial pressure.
There are strong feelings that the imposition of VAT would represent a tax on learning. It is especially welcome that the Government propose not only to restate the principle that where LEAs subsidise courses they are non-business activities and, therefore, outside the scope of VAT, but to extend the exemption to LEA classes that do not attract subsidy. It is important that this be said. It will be particularly helpful for LEA adult services contracting with the Further Education Funding Council to provide schedule 2 courses—this might be part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman—which lead to qualifications and contribute to the national targets.
It is important to note the value of all forms of adult education. There is widespread agreement that adults as well as young people need to be encouraged to gain skills and qualifications. The lifetime learning targets are recognised to be necessary for our economic well-being, though they do not look like being achieved unless they receive added impetus in some areas.
However, many adults use adult education for a variety of purposes. For example, they may wish to pursue an interest or to re-establish contact with the outside world after an illness or a bereavement. In such cases, adult education is important and precious. They may wish to keep up with a child's enthusiasm or to keep fit in retirement. If these inexpensive services are cut, there is a danger that additional costs may fall on doctors' surgeries —I say that advisedly—or on local social services. Such cuts could also lead to the loss of the crucial sense of dignity without which people cannot live happy and integrated lives.
The Government recognised all these factors when they preserved the local education authorities' duty to secure the adequate provision of general adult education under the Education (Schools) Act 1992. That was very welcome, but there is no doubt that a number of authorities, in London and elsewhere, have been struggling to maintain their budgets. It is not easy for them—we all know that.
The National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education believes that there is a need for "adequacy" to be defined to make clear LEAs' statutory duties. In that context, the first Government consultative paper on VAT and adult education, which omitted any mention of LEAs, aroused anxiety among professionals and students. A number of members of the all-party parliamentary group on adult education wrote to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to express their concern. They did not want the Government to be seen to be taxing learning when we are all trying to stimulate learning among adults. In my role as chairman of that all-party parliamentary group, I especially welcome the proposed measure and congratulate the Government on it.

Mr. David Jamieson: I, too, welcome the measures that we are discussing. I shall not detain the House by rehearsing the arguments again, because they have been excellently dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I certainly could not speak with the eloquence of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) about basket making and flower arranging, my knowledge of which could not possibly compete with his.
I wish to draw the Paymaster General's attention to another way in which value added tax is being paid out of the education budget. The relevant proposal does not go far enough. Had the Paymaster General considered it more fully, he would have realised that he should have brought other matters before the House tonight. I want him to share with us his thoughts on some of the issues to which I refer briefly.
The Paymaster General will be aware of the fact that, despite the proposals, grant-maintained schools are still liable for VAT on the services that they buy in, unlike local education authority schools, which are exempt and can claim back the VAT that they may be charged. Grant-maintained schools have to pay VAT on building and maintenance, perhaps on computers and even on legal services. The Department for Education recognises that there is an additional burden on grant-maintained schools. It does so through the special purposes grant VAT which is set at 2.5 per cent. of the annual maintenance grant that is paid to those schools. It is a considerable sum.
On 29 October last year, a reply to my written question revealed that the grant-maintained school in my constituency—one of the very few in the south-west—received £40,700 in 1993–94 towards its liability for VAT. At the moment, there are about 960 grant-maintained schools. Let us do some simple arithmetic. If there were 1,000 grant-maintained schools each receiving £1 million in grant—that is a low figure because most secondary schools receive considerably more than that but let us take it as a notional sum—it would cost £1,000 million, so the special purposes grant for VAT would be in the region of £25 million. Of course, that figure does not include their liability for VAT on fuel which, I estimate, comes to at least another £7 million a year at the rate of 8 per cent. and would be about £15 million to £16 million a year when the rate increased to 17.5 per cent.
The Paymaster General might be interested to know that I have worked out a little prognosis for him of what is perhaps an unlikely scenario, but it is one that has been wished on us by the team at the Department for Education. In that scenario, more and more schools opt for grant-maintained status instead of being run by local education authorities. If all 24,000 schools across the country became grant maintained—I recall Conservative Members saying that that was their ultimate desire—the total VAT bill, for all services, including VAT on fuel at the higher rate, would be in the region of £585 million a year. Where is that money going to come from?
It is disturbing that there is no accurate information available. Also in October last year, I asked how much fuel grant-maintained schools were using, so that I could calculate how much VAT they were paying. I was told:
This information is available only at disproportionate cost.
More learned heads tell me that that is a polite way of saying that the Department does not know. I also asked

about the total VAT bill paid by grant-maintained schools. I wonder whether that information is held by the Treasury. However, I asked the Department for Education and was told:
This information is not collected centrally."—[Official Report, 25 October 1993; Vol. 230, c.448]
That is another way of saying that the Department does not know. If we do not know how much fuel grant-maintained schools are using, and therefore how much VAT they are liable to pay, how can we accurately assess how much grant will be required in future? Is an open cheque to be made available to those schools?
My chief concern is that the imposition of VAT on grant-maintained schools must be a considerable burden on the education budget. I should like the Paymaster General to tell us whether the Government are giving the Department for Education sufficient funds to pass on directly to grant-maintained schools. I have scrutinised the budgets carefully and I have asked questions, but I cannot get an answer. If we are ultimately expecting all £585 million to be spent on VAT, the Paymaster General should provide an answer. The £25 million which is being spent at the moment would buy an enormous number of books. It would buy more than 2 million books at £10 each, and £585 million would buy nearly 58 million books at £10 each. I suggest that he consider that proposition for a moment.
Other budgets are having to take account of VAT on educational services. The Department for Education is spending in the region of £93 million a year on the assisted places scheme. In other words, it is buying in education at private and independent schools on behalf of the taxpayer. I will not exercise the arguments for and against that practice because it is inappropriate to do so in this debate. But I point out to the Paymaster General that, in most cases, private and independent schools will be liable to pay value added tax on many of their services.
If we work on the notional 2.5 per cent. figure that the Department for Education has come up with for grant-maintained schools, we must assume that 2.5 per cent. of the £93 million is being used to pay VAT. Can we, therefore, assume that, in this case, more than £2 million from the budget for the assisted places scheme is being ploughed back directly into the Treasury and is not buying any extra education, not helping a single child, buying a single book or adding to children's knowledge in any way?
I also direct the Paymaster General's attention to the Ministry of Defence. In the last financial year, it paid out more than £130 million through the services boarding scheme. That involved buying education from private independent schools, most of whom are liable to pay VAT. Therefore, we assume that about £3 million to £4 million is being spent from the Ministry of Defence budget which goes through the education system and back to the Treasury as VAT. That is not an inconsiderable sum.
I ask the Paymaster General to address the other side of the equation. We have heard tonight about the very sensible measures to exempt from VAT those services sold by educational establishments. But what will the Paymaster General do about the VAT that education establishments are having to pay from their finite budgets? If he does not give us a satisfactory answer tonight, we can only assume that the Government have found a very clever way of cutting the defence or education budgets by charging VAT, in a circular route, on the education services that the departments buy.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) in the debate. Last year, when I served with him on the Standing Committee considering the education legislation, his concern for grant-maintained schools was not precisely the one he expressed tonight.
I want to return to the terms of the order and, particularly, to welcome the exemption that has been extended to English language schools. I do so for two reasons. First, I have a constituency interest. Like many south coast towns, Hastings has a very large English as a foreign language schools sector. In fact, many people maintain that if it were not for these schools, our economy would be in an even worse state than it is at the moment. My second, broader reason is a concern about high standards in that sector.
English as a foreign language was originally a great British idea. It has since been exported throughout the world and now every country whose people speak English in one form or another—we have to recognise the barrier of the common language—is competing very hard in the marketplace. We need to ensure that, as far as possible, British schools remain competitive with others throughout the world. That means that they must be able to offer rates that are competitive with schools in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America and, probably very soon, South Africa.
Therefore, we gratefully recognise that we are not disadvantaging the private sector in competition with colleges and charities in allowing recognised schools exemption from value added tax. I feel a certain disquiet about the impact of the order because, in essence, it uses the taxation system to improve standards. There are perhaps better ways of achieving that than using the taxation system.
However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that there is a need to ensure that in this competitive world we offer only the highest possible standards of teaching and pastoral care. In the past, schools have been used as visa factories. There is the well-known example, which has gone into mythology, of the school in London which had 5,000 names on its books but only one classroom.
The Oxford Language Forum recently discovered students living five to a room. As I travel through my constituency and to towns along the south coast, my constituents and other members of the public draw to my attention the abuses perpetrated by such schools over the years. They must be rooted out. We have to ensure that we offer high standards to students who come to study in this country.
The accusation is often made that British Council recognition is just for posh, expensive schools. Those who are involved in the sector and have British Council recognition will confirm that some schools that are members of the Association of Recognised English Language Schools charge students £50 per week for 15 hours tuition in large classes. Those schools can also charge up to £1,000 per week for a one-to-one, total immersion course designed more for business men and those who need to learn the English language very quickly. This shows the range of courses offered by the recognised schools and colleges with ARELS membership.
In my constituency, a typical school charges £171.63 for 15 hours instruction per week, including accommodation. It charges £945 per month for full-time tuition—25 hours a week—including accommodation. That gives us some idea of the range of fees charged by schools which are already recognised by the British Council. It is not an exclusive regime. If schools wish to compete internationally and know that they have high educational standards, recognition by the British Council is probably the best way to go. That is one of the reasons why the taxation system will improve standards and, I hope, root out some of the schools with poor standards that are a disgrace to the industry.
I am grateful that the order will reassure not only constituents who have expressed concerns to me about the non-recognised sector, but people from other countries who wish to study here or to send their children to this country to receive English language tuition of a high standard. The English language is our major export and we must ensure that it is taught to the best possible standard. I have great pleasure in supporting the order.

Sir John Cope: I am grateful for the welcome that all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have given to the main part of the order—although obviously they raised individual points. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked about the coverage of non-vocational courses. The hon. Member for Oxford, East talked about cake decorating and other such courses. Those courses will be exempt from value added tax so long as they are provided by an eligible body. I believe that the courses that he had in mind are provided by such bodies.
The hon. Gentleman also criticised the order for dealing with both the nature of the institution and the nature of the supply. He is quite right: usually VAT depends on the nature of the supply. But sometimes it depends on the type of institution—or, for that matter, the type of goods—involved in the transaction. There are all sorts of special arrangements in the calculation of VAT. I have only to mention cars, for example, and the hon. Gentleman—who knows a good deal about the subject—will know what I mean. VAT takes into account the type of supply as well as the type of body providing a service or buying and selling goods.
In defence of the order, I must say that we are sorting out to a considerable extent the mixture between the nature of the institution and the nature of the supply being made. It was all much more mixed up before, under the old order; clarifying it is a large part of what we have done in the new order.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked about the timing of the order. As the House knows, it does not apply solely to institutions teaching English as a foreign language, but I realise that for some of those, the date of 1 August may be considered inappropriate, although it has been welcomed by others. However, the beginning of the academic year, to which the vast bulk of the order applies —or even before the beginning of it—is an appropriate time for its provisions to take effect.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the relationship between the order—and its predecessor—and the European Community agreements that govern some of our activities in connection with VAT. He asked whether


universities might be able to recover some of the VAT that they had paid in the past. Although the hon. Gentleman represents such a distinguished university city, I have to disappoint him. Apart from anything else, the apparent contradiction concerning the EC agreements has not been firmly established. In any case, if any refund were due, the university would not benefit. It would have to be refunded under the unjust enrichment rules, and would go to the students who had paid it. Such retrospection would be extremely difficult for the university to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman asked several other questions, one of which concerned note (1)(f)(ii), which refers to charities or youth clubs ploughing back any profits made into their activities. Yes, that means that any surplus should be ploughed back, not necessarily into the specific courses that gave rise to the surplus, but into such activities as would otherwise qualify as an exempt supply within this group.
The main interest in the debate has centred on the teaching of English as a foreign language. I do not agree that it would have been right to put the order on hold. As I said in my opening remarks, it is right to go ahead with it, but I am prepared to consider carefully the representations that have been made in the past few days.
I am not complaining about the fact that the Association of British Language Schools did not respond to the consultation before Christmas or in the first couple of months of this year. It is a new body, which has not existed much longer than the consultation document. It is a self-inspecting body, which was set up last autumn. I am certainly prepared to consider the representations made by that body, as well as by hon. Members and others.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) drew attention to some of the difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said that some of the institutions were a rip-off, and spoke eloquently about the problems that they have caused. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye described some institutions as "visa factories". Those are all reasons for exercising caution in extending the tax relief. That is why we acted as we did, and why we drafted the order in its present form. We shall consider the arguments advanced both in the debate and by the various bodies that have been mentioned.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want either what he has said or the way in which the order is couched to give the impression that simply because a language school does not enjoy British Council accreditation—under the existing scheme some are not eligible—it is more likely to be a cowboy operator. I agree that cowboy operators would not fall within the present British Council accreditation scheme, but the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that for many reputable schools that do a good job, the requirement for British Council accreditation gives rise to problems. Consultation needs to take place on that matter.

Sir John Cope: Absolutely. I am undertaking to consult on that. I do not wish, and I am sure that my hon. Friends

do not wish, to tar with the same brush any institution that does not happen to have British Council recognition at present. In any case, British Council recognition, including the way in which it is awarded, is and will remain one of the matters that we discuss with the British Council.
If I may say so, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) opened the debate beyond the order when he referred to grant-maintained schools, and so on. In a way, he was drawing attention to the difference between exemptions from VAT and a zero-rate for VAT. If an institution is registered for VAT, but the supplies that it makes are zero rated, it can collect back the input tax —the VAT that it has had to pay. But if the supplies that an institution makes are exempt, it cannot reclaim the input tax. Here we are talking about exemptions, not about zero-rating.
The position of local authorities is governed by section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983. The VAT that they pay is refunded. The equivalent of that is the grant to which the hon. Member for Devonport referred in connection with grant-maintained schools. He was looking forward, if that is the appropriate word, to the possibility that all schools may one day be grant-maintained.

Mr. Jamieson: indicated dissent.

Sir John Cope: I did not mean that the hon. Gentleman was looking forward to that day in the sense of welcoming it, but he did say that all schools might be grant-maintained. That, of course, would free up the money now used for section 20 grants, which would balance to a considerable degree, if not perfectly, the grant that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I cannot answer off the cuff the detailed questions about the various figures, but I shall read in Hansard what the hon. Gentleman said, and write to him. The question does not arise out of the order.

Mr. Jamieson: Will the Paymaster General put my mind, and the minds of other hon. Members, at rest? The Department for Education currently makes substantial sums available through the special purposes grant to grant-maintained schools for VAT purposes. My worry is that that money is coming from the Department's budget, and that it should and could be spent on education in other ways. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that money is being provided over and above any other funding that the Department would receive, so that it can pay the grant-maintained schools?

Sir John Cope: I think that the hon. Gentleman would prefer an accurate answer to an answer off the cuff. Although the question does not arise out of the order, I shall include an answer to it in the letter that I promised to write to him about the other matters that he raised.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have welcomed the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1188), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Speaker shall—

(1) at the sitting on Monday 23rd May, notwithstanding the Order [13th May] and the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary MacGregor relating to the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994 and the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been made;
(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 24th May—

(a) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Third Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill not later than three hours after their commencement; and
(b) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Question on the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1994 not later than three hours after it has been made; and

(3) at the sitting on Wednesday 25th May, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to the draft Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made:

and the above business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have some questions about the motion and some brief comments on it. Next Monday, we shall be discussing the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which is liable to take considerable time as there is great concern among Opposition Members about its implications. We also have to consider two orders. Under the motion, we shall have an hour and a half on the draft Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994. That order is a matter of great concern, but it is liable to be dealt with in the early hours.
I am a former railway clerk and my pension may be one of those being discussed, although it has long since disappeared into other provisions. I know that there is a great deal of interest and concern in the House about what is happening to railway pensions. There is great concern among of a number of my constituents, many of whom worked in railway workshops and other places.
Much more serious than that is the business for Tuesday, which includes provision for a three-hour Third Reading on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. If that is a three-hour debate, it is an advance, to some extent, on time given recently for such debates in the House. The Coal Industry Bill had a very short Third Reading debate. Indeed, on some other quite important matters, we have not bothered about Third Readings at all and have moved straight from Report to a final decision. We should have separate and proper debates in the House on Third Reading, so that, after Report, there could be a reprinting of the Bill at that stage, especially if there have been serious alterations on Report. We would then be in a position to have a fully fledged debate on Third Reading.
What is the position on local government for England and Wales? At least for Scotland, we are able to discuss such matters, but in England and Wales we are faced with a series of orders, which, like other orders, are unamendable and are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Indeed, we do not know when the tabling of such orders will end.
Even more seriously, Tuesday's business allows three hours for the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1994. I know that that is an annual provision and that those three hours will allow the comments that have always been made to be made again, but it covers a developing situation. I do not know what has developed today, but an answer to the points put forward by Sinn Fein and the IRA through Sinn Fein that required clarification of the Downing street declaration has been mentioned today. Such answers seem to be relevant to the approach that hon. Members will have to the order.
We may have an opportunity, subject to the decisions of the Chair, to discuss subjects slightly wider than those contained in the order, although the order itself is wide enough to facilitate quite full discussion about such matters. I am not quite sure what has occurred over the Government's intention to provide an answer to Sinn Fein. A question of mine appears on tomorrow's Order Paper and that should be an opportunity, if no other answer is given, for one to be provided.
Wednesday's business moves to the spring Adjournment motion and, according to the motion before us, a debate on the draft Council Tax Limitation (Sheffield City Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1994. Six hon. Members represent Sheffield. Two are former leaders of the council and one is a former leader of the opposition on the council. Given that that order is liable to relate to areas surrounding Sheffield, such as north-east Derbyshire, which I represent, although it looks easy to deal with, it may require the provision of more time.
With regard to the final day before the recess, Thursday 26 May, would the Leader of the House explain the situation liable to occur at 11 o'clock, when the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are straying to the next motion.

Mr. Barnes: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inadvertently strayed on to motion No. 5. As I wish to raise some points on that motion, it might be appropriate for me to try to catch your eye then.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The hon. Gentleman has legitimately raised a number of questions about the motion and I shall respond. However, perhaps I ought to preface my brief remarks by saying that, of course, the motions have been tabled following discussion—obviously I do not want to enter into those in any detail as it would be improper to do so—through the usual channels. I do not know whether this will influence the hon. Gentleman, but the motions reflect some of the knock-on effects, if I may put it like that, of our efforts, acknowledged by his Chief Whip and by the shadow Leader of the House, to be as helpful as possible in accommodating the wishes of the Opposition, which included—

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Newton: May I finish the sentence as it has specific relevance to the railway motions? Those orders were originally announced on Monday or Tuesday for debate


today. At the request of the official Opposition, they were moved from today to Monday, on the understanding that we would expect to have them governed by a motion of the sort before us.

Mr. Barnes: I recognise that there has been a careful response to the wishes of the Opposition, which has taken matters into account, that we have a different timetable for this week from that which would otherwise have taken place. It is just that I am not part of the usual channels and the avenue through which I may air points, without raising great objections to the channels being used, is on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Newton: I totally understand that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have taken my remarks amiss. I was delicately trying to imply two things. First, that the basic background to the motion is the efforts that the Government have made this week to be helpful to the Opposition. Secondly, it is not easy for me to go much further than that without entering into details about discussions through the usual channels, which would not be either proper or helpful.
In many ways, the same applies to the other parts of the motion, although the hon. Gentleman did make a specific point on the railway order. The only other comment that I can sensibly make is in relation to the Northern Ireland business on Tuesday. Of course, it is not for me to say what would or would not be in order on such an occasion, as I said to Madam Speaker when a similar question was asked during business questions this afternoon. However, it certainly seems that there would be possibilities for the hon. Gentleman to raise points about his concerns on that occasion, subject to the guidance of the Chair. However, I can tell him that, in response to his implicit question—I know that his question will be answered tomorrow—I believe that the Government's response to the Sinn Fein questions was published at 6 o'clock, when copies were placed in the Library of the House and made available to hon. Members through the Vote Office.

Question put and agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) this House do meet on Thursday 26th May at half-past Nine o'clock;
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
(3) at Three o'clock the Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses. —[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Harry Barnes: I shall now make my points to the correct motion. The motion seems to be more important than the one that I covered previously, although there were matters that needed prodding. The second part of the motion says:
the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business," statements,
I presume that that day will be divided into a series of 45-minute Adjournment debates. It is normally the case that an Adjournment debate starts at 11 am or just before. That time is also the normal time for points of order to be raised and for a statement, if required, to take place. I know that it is unlikely that we shall have statements and points of order running one after the other, but someone could be unfortunate in terms of his or her Adjournment debate. I declare an interest because I, among many others, have put in my name for such a debate. If there are statements or points of order, will time be equitably chopped off other Adjournment debates?
It is unlikely that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will complete its remaining stages. I raised the point in business questions and referred to the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) at the end of April. I felt that if the House had expressed a view, the Leader of the House should take that view seriously and should make arrangements so that there was an opportunity to discuss the Bill. If the Bill does not complete its remaining stages by 26 May, there will be an end of any feasible opportunity to pursue it.
I was unhappy with the response from the Leader of the House. He said that the House had only expressed an opinion. I believe that the opinion of the House of Commons, which was expressed not glibly—it was not a matter of only two or three people being around and someone not noticing the procedures—but clearly and firmly, with strong feelings involved, should be taken on board.
The Government seem to be maintaining their opinion that the principles of the Bill are okay, but the details create many difficulties. Some of us do not believe that. We should be given the opportunity to go through the Bill properly and the Government would then have to vote against it and face the flak. The opinion of the House is that we should like the Bill to be given the opportunity to complete its remaining stages. I hope that even at this late stage—there is still time for further statements by the Leader of the House—that opportunity will be given to us.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I shall respond first to the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about proceedings on Thursday, 26 May. The matters that he has raised are, strictly, matters for the Chair. It is for Madam Speaker to choose how to organise the debates on such a day. In my experience, she normally takes into account the possibility that there could be an interruption of business at 11 am. It is for precisely that reason that a number of debates are scheduled to last three quarters of an hour rather than half an hour. There is scope to adjust without anyone being squeezed out if there is an interruption of business. It is not for me to say how Madam Speaker will choose to arrange business today week, but I venture the thought that she will certainly take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said in making her decisions on that occasion.
It is no part of my purpose to prevent the hon. Gentleman from having an Adjournment debate that day if he is so fortunate—tiresome as it may be, knowing the hon.
Gentleman, when we discover the subject that he wishes to raise. I should be the last person to wish to deprive him of the opportunity to be tiresome.
Although I well understand why the hon. Gentleman raised his latter point, I cannot add sensibly to what I said, which he has reasonably accurately reported, in my exchange with him this afternoon in business questions. The only thing that I will say is that I do not believe, and I would not expect Hansard to show, that I said "only" the opinion of the House. I merely made the factual point that the motion was framed as, and undoubtedly has the effect of, an expression of opinion by the House. I do not mean in any way to demean or diminish the motion by making that point, but it needs to be taken into account. The motion cannot change the Sessional Order—this is the point I made this afternoon—that the House has passed, which governs the amount of time available for private Members' Bills.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of Government time being given. On a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government think that the right way now in which to proceed is for them to introduce proposals for consultation with a view to assisting in the drafting of legislation that they feel would achieve workable and practical progress in the cause of advancing the rights of disabled people. That is the right way in which to proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

PETITION

USE CLASSES ORDERS

Mr. John Butterfill: I present a petition on behalf of more than 300 of my constituents who are resident in Talbot Park. Their concern is to achieve an amendment of the law relating to town and country planning and, in particular, to the use classes orders. They are concerned that under class 2 of the use classes orders, no consent is required for a change of use for premises that may be elderly persons' rest homes, homes for the mentally infirm, children's homes or youth homes. In some cases, a fundamental change of character may arise from a change of use.
They are especially concerned that a change of use from an elderly persons' rest home to a home for young people who have been in trouble with the law may occur without any consent being required. Such a home would be fundamentally in conflict with the nature of the locality. Such a change should, therefore, require planning consent.
This is similar to the issue that the Government recently addressed in relation to changes of use from hotels to hostels. An amendment to the use classes orders is required. My constituents also ask that rigorous standards should be laid down regarding location, staff qualifications and adherence to standards and that regular checks are made on such property.

To lie upon the Table.

Ambleside Bus Station

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am grateful to have the opportunity tonight to address the House on a matter that is causing immense anxiety and concern to my constituents in Ambleside in the Lake district—the proposals made over the past five years to develop the former bus station. I am especially grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for being here to answer the debate. I know that it is his 15th wedding anniversary and I hope that the debate will not delay him too long from taking his wife to dinner.
I am also especially grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). The first knows Ambleside very well and has long connections with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East is a constituent of mine and also knows the Lake district very well.
I suppose that many of my colleagues in the House have visited Ambleside, that small, historic, idyllic market town in the centre of the Lake district. It is a place that is one of the glories of England, and lies at the hub of several valleys and roads, all of which reflect the great heritage of that part of the world.
One road goes to Grasmere and to Wordsworth's various homes; a second goes to Great Langdale and the mountains; a third goes to Hawkshead and Coniston, with memories of Beatrix Potter, Ruskin and perhaps Donald Campbell; a fourth goes to Windermere, the home of Arthur Ransome's "Swallows and Amazons"; and finally there is the steep struggle up Kirkstone pass over to Ullswater, where Wordsworth's daffodils are now ending their annual delight.
The story which I want to draw to the attention of the House began in May 1989, when the former bus station in the centre of Ambleside was closed. The bus station was an important asset to the town. It allowed buses to unload the thousands of local people and tourists who continually throng the streets of Ambleside in a way which did not disrupt the already serious traffic congestion through the town, which is a consequence of all those historic roads to which I referred earlier.
The site came into the hands of developers who, in the past five years, have made no fewer than 16 planning applications to develop the site into shops and offices. During those five years, there have been two appeals. The former Secretary of State, Chris Patten, reserved his powers and threw out the first appeal, and, a little later, the second planning appeal was thrown out by the inspector himself.
In June, there is to be yet another appeal—the third—on two current applications which have been rejected by the Lake District special planning board. I understand that the Minister tonight cannot and must not comment on the merits of the scheme. I think all of us, including my two hon. Friends, understand that, and it may be that we will be fortunate enough to hear what they have to say if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the Secretary of State being in the position of judge and jury, everyone will understand if the Minister refuses to comment on the merits.
Suffice it to say that I have opposed all the various applications during those five years, and I remain totally opposed to the current proposals. All of them have involved, in my view, top-heavy development to that small but precious community. The proposal which is the focus of the appeal which will be heard during the next few weeks will involve the construction of either 17 or 21 new shops or offices. I have been informed that, if the proposal went ahead, it would increase the retail and commercial floor space in Ambleside by up to a maximum of 25 per cent. That must be top-heavy development.
Traffic through Ambleside is already congested, especially during the tourist season. Car parking space is inadequate, as it would be even with the few extra parking spaces which are included in the current proposals.
We cannot ignore public opinion in a case of this kind. Public opinion has throughout been passionately opposed to the great series of planning proposals. Massive opposition has been mounted, and will undoubtedly manifest itself at the forthcoming inquiry. I hope to be able to present a petition to the House after the Whitsun recess. It is not yet complete, but I hope that the petition will be signed by almost 8,000 people. I shall refer to the petition later.
I know that my constituents will be presenting similar petitions to the Prime Minister's office, the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Heritage during the Whitsun recess. The latest figures, which I received this afternoon, are important and so far there are 7,774 signatures on the petition. Of that figure, 2,564 live in the Lakes parish, which is the area immediately around Ambleside. The total electorate of the Lakes parish is 4,856. Therefore, local signatures constitute well over half the number on the electoral roll. I have had an estimate from the organiser of the petition that three quarters of the residents of Ambleside have signed it.
What ought to be done with the site? I believe strongly that there is a need for more car parking, and also a need for bus station facilities on the site. It is an area which has high rainfall and at the moment buses stop in the open street. That is highly inconvenient, and there ought to be some facilities to deal with people who have buses to catch and to use.
My view is that much the best proposal—planning permission for it on the site has already been granted—is that of the local Herd-Lawson trust for a scheme for open car park space. Sadly, the developers have refused to sell to the trust for that purpose.
That leads me to the basic purpose of this debate, which is to protest at the way in which the current planning laws can allow a small and relatively defenceless community —such as the one in my constituency in Ambleside—to find themselves under almost continuous siege for a period of five years, with no prospect of ending that siege at the site in the future. It really cannot be right or fair for a Goliath of a developer to keep up a continual drip-drip of semi-repetitive planning applications which would destroy the timeless magic of this small town. But—I say this with confidence—my constituents are veritable Davids, and will battle on to preserve their heritage.
I can sum up their attitude by quoting from a letter written by Elizabeth Braithwaite, who is a passionate opponent of the developments. She is chairman of both the Lakes parish council and the South Lakeland district council. She says:

We are unable to stand aside and watch our traditional Lakeland town being ripped apart and millions of visitors from across the globe would never forgive us if we did nothing.
That is a most passionate objection to the scheme, regardless of the seemingly never-ending nature of the proposals.
In addition, there is a new and what I regard as serious matter which was drawn to my attention only today. As background, at an early stage of the saga, an official of the Lake District planning board—impertinently, in my view —announced that the board ought not to reject what he knew was already a highly controversial proposal. In spite of that official's comment, the board put him firmly in his place when it considered the matter, and it rejected the proposal for the third time. Its members did as they have done bravely and consistently throughout this saga.
Today I have received evidence that the board's officials have used their independent highways consultants in ways that I find preposterous. First, they have used those consultants to prepare plans for the developer. The members of the board are opposed to those plans. Secondly, this has been done at public expense. I understand that they are prepared to pay the fees of the independent consultant for preparing plans for the developer. Thirdly, members of the board have not been informed of that. Indeed, the papers have been kept in separate files.
I have no idea whether the practice that I have described is illegal, but I find it outrageous, given that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the board and its servants in a matter of clear sensitivity. Furthermore, it is clear from a letter which I have in my hand dated 17 May from the independent highways consultant addressed to Mr. David Brockbank, who is the chairman of the development control committee of the Lake District planning board and who will conduct the board's case at the forthcoming inquiry. The letter says:
The scheme still offends the fundamental design principle of segregating traffic and pedestrians, but this cannot be reasonably challenged on the historical evidence made available to me.
As I understand it, that means that as a result of previous appeal decisions the independent consultant was so boxed in that he was forced to put his name to a scheme which is fundamentally flawed. How can that possibly be right? Surely each appeal ought to stand on its own under our planning law. I particularly want my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that tonight.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain to us his view about the unfair arrangements which seem to be inherent in our planning law. I should like to ask him to reconsider our planning law. Of course we understand that he may not be able to respond to all our points tonight, but I hope that he will take them into consideration and will write to me as soon as possible and comment on the various matters that I have raised which cause great concern to me and thousands of my constituents.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on bringing this matter to the attention of the House this evening. The very name of his constituency evokes strong emotions in people all over the world who know and love the Lake district. He referred most eloquently, but also realistically, to the kind of town that Ambleside is. As he described the roads which enter and leave that little town, each one was clearly in my mind.
The development of a top-heavy shopping centre in the middle of the town would have a horrendous effect not only on the town but on the traffic pressures with which Ambleside already has considerable difficulty.
In mentioning my wish to participate in the debate, my right hon. Friend said that I had had a connection with Ambleside and the Lake district for many years. That is so. For more than 30 years I have known the place and been hugely fond of it. My first married home was there. I am a trustee of Brathay hall, a training centre which offers development training for young people and for managers. Large numbers come each year to the centre and benefit from it. Through my trusteeship I have a continuing interest not only in Ambleside but in the national park which is the Lake district. The work of Brathay hall is possible only because of the unique environment that the Lake district provides. I speak from a constituency at the other end of England. As my right hon. Friend spoke for his constituents, perhaps I speak for all the hundreds and thousands of off-comers who go to the Lake district because of the uniqueness that it offers and who go to Ambleside because it, too, is unique.
However inadequate our planning laws may be in dealing with the problem, we have to call a halt to unsympathetic and out-of-scale development in small places such as Ambleside. Otherwise, those who follow afterwards, as the eloquent letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Braithwaite demonstrated, will never forgive those directly responsible for such applications, Ministers who review them or Members of Parliament who have an opportunity to speak and act against such development.
The number of people throughout Britain who know the Lake district and Ambleside is great. Only a few minutes before the debate I had a meeting with an individual who lives in Kent and is a senior member of the Southern regional health authority. When I mentioned the debate to him, he immediately expressed his horror, knowing Ambleside as he did. That is just one example of what the public will feel about the development.
I heard only tonight from my right hon. Friend some of the detail of the planning application behind the appalling action taken by the officers. All planning authorities face difficulties from time to time when officials, following the exact planning regulations, feel compelled to recommend acceptance of a planning application even though the elected members are against it. I am delighted that the elected members have had the sense to turn down all the applications, and quite properly too.
The additional information that we have received about how the officers of the planning board have used public money is appalling if it is correct; that cannot be right and it must clearly be investigated.
I hope that all that I have said today will add to the pressure—for that is what there must be—ultimately to see the planning application firmly turned down on appeal and action taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment to find some way of preventing communities such as Ambleside being put under siege year after year because developers will never take no for an answer. It is unfair that any group of people, let alone that particular town, when there is wide interest throughout the country in maintaining it as an active and viable community as it is now, which is not a problem, should run the risk of being overwhelmed

by unsuitable development. Clearly, action must be taken, if necessary by reviewing the current planning laws on this issue.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) not only on his success in gaining the Adjournment debate but on the eloquent and moving way in which he spoke and put the arguments and concerns of so many of the local residents. As my right hon. Friend said, I speak as a constituent of his, as a lover of the Lake district and as a close neighbour of David Brockbank. I have known David Brockbank for many years and have much respect for him. He gives his time to work as chairman of the development committee.
I have supported development in areas of high unemployment in this country, but Ambleside certainly would not fall into that category. I have followed the saga in the pages of the Westmorland Gazette for some time now. In fact, I received a fax today containing some of its recent entries. Today, I have been extremely concerned to hear from David Brockbank, and now from my right hon. Friend, about the actions of the officers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, this case is extraordinary. Members are giving up their time to represent the interests of residents, and officers are apparently taking matters into their own hands and spending public money in the way they have decided that they want to spend it, but not in the way the members have said; the officers have not consulted anyone. I find it extraordinary that the matter has not been discussed with either the present chairman or the former chairman of the committee.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look into the whole question of whether the officers have acted ultra vires. If they have acted improperly, presumably the district auditor should examine what has happened. I imagine that if the officers have acted improperly, they will have to pay the fees out of their own pockets because they took it into their heads to spend public money without consultation. It seems that they have not even had the courtesy to discuss the matter informally with the chairman of the development committee, let alone put it formally to the committee that they would spend money in that way.
I have not followed all the ins and outs of the fight that has been going on for five years, but the feelings of the residents are clear. As someone who loves the Lake district, it is clear to me that the members should be supported in their view and I welcome the opportunity for my right hon. Friend to bring the matter to the attention of the House today. I also welcome the support that he has received from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and I add my support to the request expressed today that the whole matter should be examined properly. If there has been any wrongdoing, it should be followed up with full effect.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I begin my thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) for his kind comments at the outset of his remarks. For the reasons to which he alluded, I am grateful for the early hour at which this debate has come


before the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the care with which he has raised, on behalf of his constituents, the question of possible future uses for the former bus station site in the centre of Ambleside. He has explained clearly the concerns of a great number of his constituents—which I know he shares—about proposals for the redevelopment of the site. He has taken up those concerns with Ministers on a number of occasions over the past six years or so.
As the presence and comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) make clear and symbolise, this issue is of concern to a much wider area than simply Ambleside. That is not surprising for a town of such character in the heart of the Lake district.
As my right hon. Friend explained, Ribble Motor Services operated the Ambleside bus station and depot for many years. After carrying out a review of its overheads, the company found that it was not economic to maintain and retain the station, so in 1987 it decided that the station should be closed. That decision took effect in May 1989. Alternative facilities were provided elsewhere in the town by way of bus-stops for passengers wishing to use the bus services which the company continued to operate to and from the town. Subsequently, Ribble Motor Services sold its interests in the site.
Since then, a number of planning applications have been made to the Lake District special planning board with regard to the site. Some of these have been by other parties seeking to establish the principle of development for what might be described as social uses. However, the applications which have caused most concern have been those made first by Gainsborough Properties and subsequently by Dimples Estates—the company which I understand now owns the site. They are keen to obtain planning permission for shopping development, which they see as the best use for the site and, obviously, the development which they consider as developers to be in their best commercial interests.
I know from the letters which my right hon. Friend and a number of his constituents have sent to us that these planning applications have aroused a great deal of opposition from local people. They have opposed all the planning applications made to the board.
I appreciate the objections made by local people about the proposals, which include concern about the adverse effect which new, additional shops in the town might have on the livelihood of existing shopkeepers; concern about the design of the new buildings proposed and the possibility that they would obscure much valued views of the surrounding hills; concern that additional shops might attract more traffic and congestion to Ambleside; and concern that redevelopment of the site should be resisted so that the site can partly be used again one day as a bus station. My right hon. Friend made those concerns clear, as have many of his constituents in letters to us.
I make clear straight away that the latter option of returning the site perhaps to a bus station is not a matter which I have power to influence. It is entirely for Dimples Estates to consider whether it might seek to reopen the site as a bus station and try to attract bus operators to use it again, or whether it wishes to redevelop the site for some other purpose, subject of course to obtaining planning permission for its proposals.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the company has again exercised its statutory right of appeal to the

Secretary of State against decisions made last year by the planning board to refuse permission for shopping and other development on the bus station site. Arrangements have been made for a planning inspector to hold a public inquiry, which is scheduled to open on 7 June, to hear the views of all interested parties about those particular proposals and to decide, in the light of all the evidence presented to him, whether the appeals should be allowed and planning permission granted or refused.
My right hon. Friend will also be aware that in the past two months or so the planning board has refused two further applications for amended development proposals for the site.
The thrust of my right hon. Friend's comments this evening was as much about the planning system generally. The purpose of the planning system is to regulate the use and development of land in the public interest. Of course, different people and different interest groups have different views about how an area should develop. I am sure that the House will be aware that every local planning authority, including the Lake District special planning board, must prepare a development plan. It is intended that the whole of the country should be covered by development plans by 1996.
Development plans have a key role to play in reconciling the different demands. They set the framework within which individual planning decisions are taken. The Lake District special planning board is no different from any other local planning authority in that respect. It has responsibility for drawing up the development plan for its area and for deciding planning applications in accordance with that plan, unless there are good reasons why it should not. Any applicant who proposes a development which is clearly in conflict with the plan would need to produce convincing reasons to demonstrate why permission should be given. However, applications which conform to a plan's requirements should generally be allowed unless they would cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
Of course, the development plan is not totally prescriptive. There is always scope for other considerations. Sometimes a departure from the development plan may be justified. If a plan proves not to be relevant in a particular case, the application will be decided on its merits. The plan is intended, however, to give a measure of certainty about the kind of development that will be permitted. It must provide a firm basis for consistent planning decisions and that is in the interests of all concerned.
In short, if an application is in accord with the plan it will generally be allowed. If it is not in accord with the adopted plan it will be refused and that refusal would be reflected in an appeal.
Everyone who has an interest in an area has a part to play in drawing up the development plan for that area; that means local people and conservation and amenity groups, as well as business and developer interests. Local planning authorities must consult all of those groups and give everyone concerned a chance to have their say. In that way, local people have a chance to influence the future pattern of development by making their views known as the overall framework is put in place.
I mention all those details about development plans because they are important as regards this issue. The Lake District special planning board placed its local plan on deposit on 17 March. The plan does contain a policy which


provides that within defined central shopping areas shopping development will be permitted, subject to certain criteria being met.
The bus station site is shown as being within the central shopping area of Ambleside. It follows that the Lake District special planning board intends, in its local development plan, that shopping development would be permitted within that area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and local residents would have taken note of that.
The formal objection period ended only on 29 April, so the planning board has not yet completed a full analysis of the objections and representations it has received on the planned proposals. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend and others will have noted carefully those proposals.
There are circumstances in which people feel that their concerns and interests are not being taken into account when a decision is made on an application. It is understandable that they turn to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers responsible for planning and press us to intervene. Parliament has given the Secretary of State the power to call in a planning application for his own decision if he feels it necessary to do so. In calling in a planning application, however, the Secretary of State is effectively taking the decision away from those who represent the interests of local people.
Planning is essentially a local matter and the planning Acts provide for applications to be dealt with by local planning authorities. We believe that it is wrong to interfere with that local decision-making process, unless such intervention is absolutely necessary. Our policy on calling in planning applications is therefore very selective. Each case must, of course, be considered on its merits. We will in general only call in applications if they raise planning issues of more than local importance. To put that into context, last year we called in only 101 applications out of a total of nearly half a million. To put that into perspective, it represents less than one fortieth of 1 per cent. of all planning applications.
Of course, where proposals are turned down by the local planning authority—or are not decided within a certain time—applicants have a statutory right to appeal to the Secretary of State. Although all planning appeals are decided in the Secretary of State's name, most of them are adjudicated on and decided by independent inspectors working for the Planning Inspectorate Agency.
Only about 200 of the 200,000 or so appeals received each year are decided by Ministers. Those are usually appeals that are large in scale or especially controversial. The precise criteria were published in the Government's response to the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on the Environment. They include proposals for residential developments of 150 or more houses, proposals that raise important or novel issues of development control and those against which another Government Department has raised major objections.
In line with that policy on the recovery of appeals, arrangements have been made for a planning inspector to hold a public inquiry into the appeals made by Dimples Estates against the planning board's decision to refuse permission for shopping and other development on the bus station site. As my right hon. Friend fairly acknowledged, to all intents the matter is now sub judice because an appeal

is pending. As he made clear, he and other hon. Members appreciated that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the proposals that are the subject of the two appeals as it would not be right for me to make any comments that might be seen to prejudice the decision on them. Nor would it be right for me to comment on the proposals which the planning board refused recently and which may yet come before the Secretary of State for determination on appeal.
I am nevertheless confident that the inspector appointed to hold the inquiry will be well aware that we are keen to ensure the highest quality for our built environment and for existing town centres, which are of key importance to urban quality. Government policy on the subject is set out in two planning policy guidance notes, which have recently been published and widely welcomed: PPG6 on town centres and retail developments and PPG13 on transport.
Our planning guidance seeks to protect and enhance the viability and vitality of existing town centres in both urban and rural areas through polices that strengthen existing centres, avoid both the sporadic siting of shopping units and large retail developments in out-of-town centres, and promote development at locations readily accessible by means other than the private car. Translated, the latter means existing town centres, which are also accessible by good transport.
My hon. Friend raised a number of matters. He asked whether anything can be done to prevent developers from making repetitive planning applications merely to wear down the resistance of the responsible local planning authority and local residents, such as those in Ambleside, who have campaigned hard against development proposals that they do not like. The answer, as I shall explain in a minute, is yes.
There is no limit to the number of applications for the same or different developments which an applicant can make. One might feel it unlikely that a local planning authority would reverse a decision made recently in respect of a similar development proposed for the same site. The applicant may be able, however—perhaps after informal discussions with the authority's officers and others—to adjust the scheme to take into account previous criticisms, or even to provide further information or arguments that might lead to a different decision on the same scheme. In any event, an applicant is entitled to apply again and to have any new application considered by the authority.
The law contains protection from repetitive planning applications for local communities, however. As the House may recall, in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 we added—for the reasons that my right hon. and hon. Friends raised this evening—powers for local planning authorities to decline to determine certain types of repetitive planning applications. The circular that we issued at the time made it clear that our intention in introducing those powers was, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, to allow authorities to prevent repetitive applications from being used to wear down the resistance of local communities.
I entirely agree with him. No local community should feel that it is under siege from repetitive planning applications and the law gives them protection. Those powers can be used when the same, or substantially the same, proposal has been rejected by the Secretary of State on appeal, or following call-in within two years prior to the date of the application and when there have been no significant changes in the development plan or other relevant considerations.
We made it clear that authorities should use those powers only where they believe that the application in question is intended to exert pressure by submitting repeated similar applications. If an application has been revised in a genuine attempt to take account of objections to earlier proposals, it should not be regarded as a repetitive application for the purposes of those powers and the applicant should be given the benefit of any doubt.
It is for the Lake District special planning board to decide whether or not those powers apply to any of the Ambleside bus station applications. I understand that the special planning board has considered that question in relation to the applications, but reached the view that none of the bus station site applications is repetitive. That is a decision that they are entitled to make. I have no power to direct them or even to take a view.
The Lake District special planning board, having reached the view that the applications made so far by Dimples Estates are not ones to which those special provisions apply, must proceed to determine them in accordance with normal procedures; that is, the board must publicise the applications and carry out necessary consultations on the applications.
The relevant development control committee then decides the applications, having regard to the requirements set out in section 54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It will be guided by the report prepared by its officers setting out details of the development proposed of the responses received as a result of the publicity and consultation exercise of how the proposed development accords or otherwise with relevant development plan policies and of its officers' recornmendation on whether planning permission should be given.
It is right that the board should have a full appraisal of the applications with a clear recommendation from its professional officers, but of course the final decision is and must be entirely a matter for the board and it makes the final decision and gives the reasons for that decision.
My right hon. Friend is understandably concerned at the way in which officers of the planning board—if what he says is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it—appear to have employed at public expense their highway experts to act for and on behalf of the developers in preparing the application.
Clearly, from the information that my right hon. Friend has been able to give the House this evening, I am not in a position to judge the wisdom of such a course, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so without having seen the full facts, but clearly if there are matters of concern as to whether those officers have been acting within their powers, or have been acting properly, my right hon. Friend may well wish to refer them to the district auditor.
One of the most important features of the planning system is that local people generally should have confidence in the integrity of the system. If there is anything which in any way undermines the integrity of the planning system, it is right that any suspicion or concern be addressed to the appropriate body—in this case the district auditor.
In the circumstances, I am sure my right hon. Friend will again appreciate that it would not be right for me to comment more generally upon this particular case. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his constituents will continue to keep the planning board aware of their views and, of course, will make appropriate representations to the inspector during the appeal inquiry which will be held shortly so that their views can be taken into account in the determination of the applications coming before the board or the appeal coming before the inspector.
I know that my right hon. Friend will keep me informed of his and his constituents' views in any cases which may come before the Secretary of State for decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Nine o'clock.